
Qass. 
Book 



tHli 





COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 



ilargc^aper CDition 



AMERICAN STATESMEN 

EDITED BY 

JOHN T. MORSE, JR. 

IN THIRTY-TWO VOLUMES 
VOL. XXX. 



THE CIVIL WAR 
CHARLES SUMNER 




Ox 



<^-^s> 



mf- 6<yt^^^v^i> 






EBITIO 




, 






Zmttitm &>tm*mm 



CHARLES SUMNER 



MOORFIELD STOREY 




BOSTON AND NEW YORK 

HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY 

<3Ebe fiitoew&e p»res$, CambriDoe 

M DCCCC 



Eys 

JPoie ^unbreb Copic? pnnteb 
dumber. X. 

TWO COPIES RECEIVED, 

Library of Congjre»*B 
Offlae of the 

Waglster of Copyrights, 






SbCOND OOP^, 



COPYRIGHT, 1900, BY MOORFIELD STOREY 

COPYRIGHT, 1900, BY HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & CO. 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 






o o. 



CONTENTS 



CHAP. PAGE 

I. Bikth and Education 1 

II. European Experience 17 

III. Professional Life 27 

IV. Entrance into Public Life .... 34 
V. Election to the Senate 65 

VI. First Years in the Senate .... 86 

VH The Repeal of the Missouri Compromise . 101 

VIII. The Brooks Assault 131 

IX. The Results of the Assault .... 154 

X. The Triumph of the Republican Party . 165 

XI. Secession vs. Compromise .... 178 

XII. Emancipation 197 

XIII. The Trent Affair 208 

XIV. The End of Slavery 217 

XV. The Critical Period of the CmL War . 235 

XVI. Reconstruction and Equal Rights . . 255 
XVII. The Last Year of the War . . .271 

XVIII. Reconstruction again 282 

XLX. The Struggle with President Johnson . 302 
XX. Alaska : the Alabama Claims : the Impeach- 
ment 338 

XXI. Financial Reconstruction: Foreign Rela- 
tions 352 

XXII. Grant's Administration : the Alabama Claims 362 

XXIII San Domingo and the Contest with Grant 379 

XXIV. Civil Rights: Grant's Renomination . . 401 

XXV. The Last Session 426 

Index 433 



ILLUSTRATIONS 

Charles Sumner Frontispiece 

From a photograph by Brady in the Library of the 
State Department at Washington. 

Autograph from the Chamberlain collection, Boston 
Public Library. 

The vignette of Mr. Sumner's home, corner of Ver- 
mont Avenue and H Street, Washington, D. C, is from 
a drawing after a photograph. Page 

George S. Boutwell facing 84 

From a photograph by Brady in the Library of the 

State Department at Washington. 

Autograph from the Chamberlain collection, Boston 

Public Library. 

John A. Andrew facing 192 

From a photograph in the possession of Mr. Francis J. 
Garrison, Boston. 

Autograph from the Chamberlain collection, Boston 
Public Library. 

Facsimile op Charles Sumner's Handwriting facing 388 
Letter written from Washington, D. C, December 29, 
1870, to William Lloyd Garrison. From the Garrison 
MSS., Boston Public Library. 

Henry Wilson facing 400 

From a photograph by Brady in the Library of the 

State Department at Washington. 

Autograph from the William Lloyd Garrison MSS., 

Boston Public Library. 



CHARLES SUMNER 



CHAPTER I 

BIRTH AND EDUCATION 



Charles Sumner came of typical Massachusetts 
stock. His family on both sides was of English 
origin, but his ancestors left England very soon 
after the landing of the Pilgrims, and dwelt 
in the neighborhood of Boston for nearly two 
centuries before his birth. Roger Sumner, his 
lineal ancestor in the eighth generation, died and 
was buried at Bicester in Oxfordshire. William, 
the only son of Roger, came to America about 
1635, and settled in Dorchester, which adjoined 
Boston on the south. He became at once a land- 
owner and was made a freeman in 1637. He was 
admitted to the church in 1652 ; was a deputy to 
the General Court, a selectman, a commissioner to 
try small causes, and in other ways showed himself 
an active and public-spirited citizen. He brought 
three children with him from England, and two 
more were born afterward. Roger, his second son, 
was born in England. He married Mary Josselyn, 
of Lancaster, in Massachusetts, and became an in- 



2 CHARLES SUMNER 

habitant of that town in 1660, but when Lancaster 
was destroyed by the Indians he removed to Milton, 
where he died. George, the third son of William, 
was the ancestor of Increase Sumner, a justice of 
the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and 
governor of the Commonwealth. William, the 
fourth son of Roger, had many children, of whom 
one, Seth, was married twice. A son of the first 
marriage was the grandfather of Major-General 
Edwin V. Sumner, who commanded a corps in the 
Army of the Potomac under McClellan and Burn- 
side. A son of the second marriage, Job, was the 
father of Charles Pinckney Sumner, and the grand- 
father of Charles Sumner. 

The Sumners had been for the most part farm- 
ers, but Job was resolved to obtain a liberal educa- 
tion, and entered Harvard College in November, 
1774, at the age of twenty. The shots fired at 
Concord and Lexington changed the current of his 
ambition, and in May, 1775, he joined the Ameri- 
can army at Cambridge. He was a lieutenant at 
Bunker Hill and during the siege of Boston, and 
his conduct in several actions earned him a com- 
mission as captain, given him by vote of Congress 
in 1779, to date from July 1, 1776. He was com- 
missioned a major in 1783, and was second in com- 
mand of the force which protected New York dur- 
ing the evacuation by the British in that year. It 
was from soldiers under his command that Wash- 
ington received the last salute of the revolutionary 
army. After the war, on July 7, 1785, the cor- 



BIRTH AND EDUCATION 3 

poratlon of Harvard College gave him the degree 
of A. M., as a member of his class, by a vote which 
recited that he had " during the war behaved with 
reputation as a man and as an officer." In 1785 
he was appointed a commissioner to settle the ac- 
counts between the Confederation and the State of 
Georgia, and he resided in Georgia until he died. 
He is said to have been a candidate for governor, 
and to have been defeated by only a few votes. 
He was apparently a man of the world, who lived 
expensively and entertained freely. He died in 
New York of a fever, in his thirty-sixth year, and 
was buried in St. Paul's churchyard on Broadway, 
where stands his tombstone, erected by the Society 
of the Cincinnati. 

His son, Charles Pinckney Sumner, was born 
in Milton, and brought up on a farm. He went 
to Phillips Academy at Andover, and graduated at 
Harvard College in 1796, where he formed a friend- 
ship with Joseph Story which exercised an important 
influence on his son's career. After graduating he 
taught school for a while, but in 1799 he entered 
the office of Josiah Quincy, and in 1801 was ad- 
mitted as an attorney. He took an active interest 
in politics as a supporter of Jefferson, and his first 
political speech, made in 1804, was an argument 
against disunion. He was clerk of the House of 
Representatives in 1806-7 and 1810-11. He was 
married in 1810, and in 1819 he accepted the office 
of deputy sheriff, having been unsuccessful in prac- 
tice. From 1825 till just before his death in 1839 



4 CHAELES SUMNER 

he was the sheriff of Suffolk County, and while his 
political activity ended when he became sheriff, he 
was interested in the temperance question and in 
the anti-Masonic movement, though he had been 
a Mason. He was an anti-slavery man in feel- 
ing, though not prominent in the agitation. He 
delivered a number of public addresses at various 
times, but was not conspicuous as an orator. He 
was high-minded, courageous, scholarly, extremely 
conscientious and faithful in the discharge of 
every duty, but formal, reserved, grave, and stern ; 
somewhat narrow also, and without his father's 
social charm. He foresaw the inevitable result 
of the agitation against slavery, and in 1820 said : 
" Our children's heads will some day be broken on 
a cannon-ball on this question." It is from him 
that Charles Sumner may well have derived his 
unbending conscience and his intense earnest- 
ness. 

Charles Pinckney Sumner married Kelief Jacob 
of Hanover in Massachusetts, a descendant from 
Nicholas Jacob, who came to America in 1633, and 
after settling in Watertown, removed to Hingham 
in 1635. Her grandfather was a man of property 
and one of the Committee of Public Safety at the 
time of the ^Revolution, but the family were gener- 
ally farmers of the solid New England type. Her 
father was evidently in narrow circumstances, and 
before her marriage she supported herself by her 
needle. She was a woman of even temper and 
great good sense, who probably did much to temper 



BIRTH AND EDUCATION 5 

her husband's austerity in the family life. She had 
nine children, and died in 1866 at the age of eighty- 
one. 

Such was the ancestry of Charles Sumner. He 
and his twin sister Matilda, the first children of 
their parents, were born on January 6, 1811, at 
the corner of Revere and Irving streets in Boston. 
His childhood was in no way remarkable ; he was 
educated in the schools of Boston, and was an 
amiable, quiet, refined, and studious boy. Among 
his schoolmates at the Pubbc Latin School were 
Robert C. Winthrop, who was older, and Wen- 
dell Phillips, who was younger than himself. He 
won several prizes for translations from Latin, 
for a Latin poem, and for an English theme ; but 
while taking respectable rank, he seems to have 
been more remarkable for knowledge acquired by 
general reading than for striking ability. Though 
apparently never ill his health was not robust, and 
having little inclination for sports he early acquired 
the tastes and habits of a scholar. 

His father at first did not intend to give him 
a college education, and it is a little curious that 
Sumner himself, in later years the champion of 
peace, wished to enter the military academy at West 
Point. His application for a cadetship failed, and 
the father's opportune appointment as sheriff, with 
a larger income, enabled the son to enter Harvard 
College in September, 1826. Lovers of specula- 
tive inquiry may be interested to consider what 
sort of a soldier was thus lost to the country. 



6 CHARLES SUMNER 

Sumner's college class was not so rich in distin- 
guished men as its brilliant predecessor, the famous 
class of '29, and he was among the youngest mem- 
bers. He devoted his time to history, literature, 
and the classics, in which he excelled, but his dislike 
for mathematics and physics prevented his taking 
high rank, and abandoning this ambition he gave 
himself up to the studies that he loved. A 
classmate tells us that he was "one of the best 
declaimers in the class," showing " a great degree 
of earnestness with an entire freedom from any 
effort to make a dash." " It was the same type 
of subdued eloquence, inseparable from the man," 
which he afterward displayed, and already he was 
self-possessed and easy on the stage. He received 
minor parts at college exhibitions and Commence- 
ment, and he won a second Bowdoin prize by an 
essay on " The Present Character of the Inhabit- 
ants of New England," which, we are told, showed 
copious reading and immense industry, but lacked 
condensation and clearness. He was fond of dis- 
cussion, persistent and possibly somewhat aggres- 
sive in argument. Socially he was frank, kindly 
and genial, but possessed a native dignity which 
became him well. His life at college was a period 
of healthy and natural growth before anything had 
occurred to awaken strong feeling. 

The year after Sumner's graduation was spent 
at home. He took time to decide what his work 
in life should be, and meanwhile, rising early 
and working late, he read the classics, poetry, 



BIRTH AND EDUCATION 7 

general literature and history, and attacked mathe- 
matics with better success than in college. He 
taught school for a few weeks, wrote an essay on 
commerce for a prize offered by a Boston society, 
of which Daniel "Webster was the president, and 
received the award from his hands. This success 
gratified his friends and we may suppose gave him 
a certain reputation. Except that, in natural sym- 
pathy with his father, his feelings were enlisted 
against Freemasonry, he seems to have taken little 
interest in public questions during this year, which 
was spent in desultory labor. At this time he saw 
little of society ; he was pondering carefully the 
question of his future occupation, and it was after 
much deliberation and with many misgivings that 
he decided to study law. 

Sumner entered the Harvard Law School in 
September, 1831, where he was brought under the 
influence of Judge Story, who had been sitting 
on the Supreme Bench of the United States for 
twenty years and was just beginning the series of 
treatises which gave him his great international re- 
putation. Story's enthusiasm and personal charm 
made him a stimulating teacher. As an old friend 
of Sumner's father he took a kindly interest in the 
son, which ripened into friendship, and Sumner was 
soon a constant visitor at his house. Simon Green- 
leaf, who was appointed a professor about six 
months before Sumner left the school, also became 
his friend, and the two eminent lawyers inspired 
him with the strongest devotion to his profession. 



8 CHARLES SUMNER 

Sumner remained in the Law School until the 
end of December, 1833, applying himself to study 
with ardor and persistency. For the first time he 
felt a definite ambition, for the first time his work 
satisfied and inspired him. He wrote to one of 
his classmates : " A lawyer must know everything. 
He must know law, history, philosophy, human 
nature ; and if he covets the fame of an advocate 
he must drink of all the springs of literature, 
giving ease and elegance to the mind and illus- 
tration to whatever subjects it touches." His 
plan of life was : " Six hours, namely, the fore- 
noon, wholly and solely to law ; afternoon to clas- 
sics ; evening to history, subjects collateral and 
assistant to law, etc. . . . Recreation must not be 
found in idleness or loose reading." 

Possessed with this theory he read law, classics, 
history, literature, rising early and working late, 
until his inflamed eyes and clouded complexion 
showed the effects of excessive labor. Yet he was 
never ill and seemed independent of sleep and ex- 
ercise. He treated his mind as a reservoir and 
into it steadily pumped learning of every kind, 
which his strong memory retained. He became 
librarian of the school, and was given a room in 
Dane Hall, where he acquired a remarkable fa- 
miliarity with the books under his charge. He 
won a Bowdoin prize by an essay on the sub' 
ject, " Are the most important Changes in Society 
effected Gradually or by Violent Revolutions ? " 
He wrote two articles for the " American Monthly 



BIRTH AND EDUCATION 9 

Review," and before lie left the Law School be- 
came a contributor to the " American Jurist." 
His style gained in clearness and conciseness, but 
his writings were more learned than original. The 
impression which he made upon his contemporaries 
at this time was very pleasant. Thus President 
Quincy's daughter, Mrs. Waterston, speaks of 
seeing at one of her mother's receptions, "the 
tall spare form and honest face of Charles Sum- 
ner," and adds : " This youth, though not in the 
least handsome, is so good-hearted, clever, and real, 
that it is impossible not to like him and believe in 
him." 

Judge Story's son, William "W., who was some 
eight years younger than Sumner, writes : " He 
used to come to our house some two or three even- 
ings in the week, and to his long conversations I 
used to listen night after night with eager pleasure. 
His simplicity and directness of character, his en- 
thusiasm and craving for information, his lively 
spirit and genial feeling, immediately made a strong 
impression on me. My father was very fond of 
him, and treated him almost as if he were a son ; 
and we were all delighted to welcome him to our 
family circle. He was free, natural, and naive in 
his simplicity, and plied my father with an ever- 
flowing stream of questions, and I need not say 
that the responses were as full and genial as heart 
and mind could desire. . . . He was at this time 
totally without vanity, and only desirous to acquire 
knowledge and information on every subject. . . . 



10 CHARLES SUMNER 

Though he was an interesting talker, he had no 
lightness of hand. He was kindly of nature, in- 
terested in everything, but totally put off his 
balance by the least persiflage ; and if it was 
tried on him his expression was one of complete 
astonishment. He was never ready at a retort 
. . . and was at this time almost impervious to a 
joke. He had no humor himself and little sense of 
it in others, and his jests, when he tried to make 
one, were rather cumbrous. But in ' plain sail- 
ing ' no one could be better or more agreeable." 

Another characteristic is described by a friend, 
who says : " A peculiar lif e-and-death earnestness 
characterized even then all that Sumner did and 
said." 

His years at the Law School gave him a definite 
ambition, and for the first time he distinguished 
himself from his fellows and showed promise of 
future eminence, while the favorable opinion of 
Judge Story and Mr. Greenleaf gave him a repu- 
tation at the very outset of his career. In those 
days the community was small, and the world out- 
side was ready to welcome a man who made his 
mark at Cambridge. 

In January, 1834, after leaving the Law School, 
Stunner entered the office of Benjamin Rand, an 
eminent lawyer of Boston, where he continued to 
write for the " Jurist," becoming one of its editors 
in May. In February he went to Washington for 
a month, making on his way short visits in Phila- 
delphia and New York. Through the introduc- 



BIRTH AND EDUCATION 11 

tions of Judge Story, Sumner enjoyed on this trip 
rare opportunities to become acquainted with the 
distinguished men of the day. A letter from Pro- 
fessor Greenleaf introduced him to Chancellor 
Kent, and it is amusing to find Kent saying that 
he " thought Jackson would ruin us ; wanted to go 
to Washington, but if he went should be obliged 
to see much company, call upon Jackson and dine 
with him, perhaps, all of which he could not con- 
sent to do." This was a time when men took 
political differences seriously, and did not condone 
in social intercourse conduct which they condemned 
in public speech. It is amusing, also, to find Sum- 
ner writing: "Kent's conversation is lively and 
instructive, but grossly ungrammatical." 

During this visit he saw much of Judge Story ; 
was introduced to President Jackson ; met the 
judges of the Supreme Court at their Sunday din- 
ner, he being the only guest ; secured what he " may 
almost call a place in the court ; " dined repeat- 
edly with Horace Binney ; made the acquaintance 
of Henry Wheaton and Francis Lieber, afterward 
his intimate friend ; and heard many distinguished 
lawyers address the Supreme Court. The country 
was convulsed at the time by the removal of the 
deposits from the Bank of the United States, and 
the debates in Congress were especially interesting. 
"Webster gave Sumner a card admitting him to the 
floor of the Senate, so that he heard the greatest 
orators of the country, — Webster, Clay, and Cal- 
houn, for once on the same side. It was a memo- 



12 CHARLES SUMNER 

rable visit, and it would seem that in scenes of such 
excitement, and under the influence of such men, 
the political instincts of Sumner must have been 
aroused. Yet he wrote to his father : " Calhoun 
has given notice to-day that he will speak to-mor- 
row on Mr. Webster's bank bill. I shall probably 
hear him, and he will be the last man I shall 
ever hear speak in Washington. I probably shall 
never come here again. I have little or no desire 
ever to come again in any capacity. Nothing that 
I have seen of politics has made me look upon 
them with any feeling other than loathing. The 
more I see of them the more I love law, which I 
feel will give me an honorable livelihood." 

To see what manner of man he then was we 
may borrow the eyes of a young lady who saw him 
in Philadelphia, a daughter of Mr. Peters, the 
reporter : — 

" He was then a great, tall, lank creature, quite 
heedless of the form and fashion of his garb ; ' un- 
sophisticated,' everybody said, and oblivious to the 
propriety of wearing a hat in a city, going about in 
a rather shabby fur cap ; but the fastidiousness of 
fashionable ladies was utterly routed by the wonder- 
ful charm of his conversation, and he was carried 
about triumphantly and introduced to all the dis- 
tinguished people, young and old, who then made 
Philadelphia society so brilliant. No amount of 
honeying, however, could then affect him. His 
simplicity, his perfect naturalness, was what struck 
every one, combined with his rare culture and his 



BIRTH AND EDUCATION 13 

delicious youthful enthusiasm. . . . Every one was 
sorry when he left town, and from that time his 
name was really a household word with us. There 
was a sweetness and tenderness of character about 
him, and an entire unworldliness, that won all hearts, 
while his delightful culture completed the charm." 

A witness of the opposite sex describes him as 
"modest and deferential, attracting attention by 
his remarkable attainments and manly presence." 

After his return, Judge Story offered him the 
position of an instructor in the Law School, but he 
declined it, and in September, 1834, was admitted 
to the bar. For a little more than three years he 
practiced law in Boston, forming a partnership in 
November, 1834, with George S. Hillard. Pro- 
fessor Greenleaf kept a desk in the rooms, and 
Judge Story was a frequent caller, with others 
then prominent in literary or legal life. Sumner 
was not the man to acquire a large general prac- 
tice. He lacked the readiness and quick percep- 
tion essential to success before juries, and he had 
not yet shown any great power as a speaker. He 
had a number of suits which he conducted with 
success, but his arguments were learned essays 
rather than that forcible presentation of the case 
which is most effective in getting a judgment. 
Indeed, his copious learning was rather an incum- 
brance in active practice, since he was disposed 
to overestimate the value of what had cost him 
so much labor, and to rely on quotations rather 
than on his own ideas, often better suited to the 



14 CHARLES SUMNER 

immediate occasion. The defect which Doctor 
Holmes points out in saying that he had " little 
imagination, wit, or sense of humor" was a se- 
rious handicap, the outward sign of that great dis- 
qualification, the inability to put oneself in an- 
other's place. He stood ready to undertake any 
work which came, but could not seek business, and 
apparently did not attract clients. He did as well, 
probably, as most young lawyers, but the reputa- 
tion which he brought from the school and the 
commendations of his friends led him to expect 
more, and he was naturally disappointed. 

Yet he was always occupied. The literary work 
for which he was fitted sought him constantly. 
In January, 1835, he became an instructor in the 
Law School, during Judge Story's absence, and 
again in 1836-37. He was substantially in charge 
of the school at one time, and though he did not 
fail as a teacher, he was not brilliantly successful. 
In 1835 Judge Story selected him to report his de- 
cisions in the Circuit Court, of which he published 
three volumes. He assisted Greenleaf in his Maine 
Digest, and prepared the index for Story's " Equity 
Jurisprudence." He was an editor of the " Jurist," 
and a constant contributor to it, but dealt more 
with the literary aspects of the law than with prac- 
tical questions. He helped Dunlap in revising 
for the press his work on " Admiralty Practice," 
and he prepared the forms which are added to 
it. He wrote for the " North American Review," 
and delivered some lectures, but they were essays 



BIRTH AND EDUCATION 15 

on legal subjects which gave him no popular re- 
putation. 

During these years he did not make any effort 
to enter general society, but he enlarged his ac- 
quaintance with eminent men and made some life- 
long friendships. His connection with the "Ju- 
rist " brought him into correspondence with leading 
lawyers all over the country and with foreign 
writers on jurisprudence. He became intimate 
with Cornelius C. Felton, afterwards the President 
of Harvard University, Henry W. Longfellow, 
and Henry R. Cleveland, a company of scholars 
who met with Hillard and Sumner almost weekly, 
calling their society " The Five of Clubs." His 
circle was not large, but it was of the best, and his 
associates were mostly older than he. 

Devoted to his work, he showed little interest in 
the questions of the day, while his friends were tak- 
ing part in politics. He became acquainted with 
Dr. "William Ellery Channing, and later felt his 
influence strongly, but as yet his sense of public 
duty was not awakened. Winthrop and Hillard 
went to the legislature, and Phillips, his intimate 
friend, had already won reputation as a speaker, 
but he was still absorbed in law and literature. 
Only two references to slavery are found in his 
published letters. On February 24, 1834, in writ- 
ing to his parents of his journey from Baltimore 
to Washington, he says : " For the first time I 
saw slaves, and my worst preconception of their 
appearance and ignorance did not fall as low as 



16 CHARLES SUMNER 

their actual stupidity. They appear to be nothing 
more than moving masses of flesh, unendowed with 
anything of intelligence above the brutes. I have 
now an idea of the blight upon that part of our 
country in which they live." 

Nearly two years later, on January 9, 1836, 
he writes to Lieber, then in Columbia, S. C. : 
" You are in the midst of slavery. . . . What think 
you of it ? Should it longer exist ? Is not eman- 
cipation practicable? We are becoming aboli- 
tionists at the North fast ; the riots, the attempts 
to abridge the freedom of discussion, Governor 
McDuffie's message, and the conduct of the South 
generally have caused many to think favorably of 
immediate emancipation, who never before inclined 
to it." 

Sumner had subscribed to the " Liberator " in 
1835, and had read it since, but these letters 
show only a languid interest in the question. Nor 
was it sympathy with the sufferings of slaves, 
but indignation at the attempts to impair the liber- 
ties of white men, which roused him, and began to 
change the kindly scholar into the insistent and 
uncompromising foe of slavery. 



CHAPTER II 

EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE 

Sumner had long felt an overmastering desire 
to visit Europe, and in 1837 lie determined to go, 
although his friends with few exceptions counseled 
against the journey, as an interruption of his pro- 
fessional career. His own funds were insufficient, 
but Judge Story and two other friends lent him 
what he needed, and with excellent letters of intro- 
duction he sailed on December 8, 1837. He was 
well prepared for his new experiences. He had 
learned to be nice in his dress, and the impression 
which he made upon strangers may be gathered 
from the description of him given by one who met 
him just before he started. " He appeared with a 
right royal presence, his countenance characterized 
by a genuine warmth and great readiness; in a 
word it was that of a highly bred, well-informed 
gentleman of a somewhat older school than I was 
in the way of meeting." He was "handsomely 
dressed, erect, easy, conscious of his strength." 
The " shabby fur cap " of a few years before had 
disappeared with all that it implied. 

The years which he spent in Europe enlarged 
his horizon, added to his knowledge, filled his 



18 CHARLES SUMNER 

memory with a wealth of associations, and made 
him a citizen of the world. No other American 
had been received so cordially or offered such 
opportunities. In a biography intended to pre- 
sent Sumner as a statesman and to show what 
influence he exerted upon the government of his 
country, there is room only for such a sketch of his 
journey as will indicate what it contributed to the 
education with which he entered public life. It 
was now that he established personal relations with 
leading foreigners, and gained an influence which 
later was of great value in the conduct of our 
foreign affairs. 

Landing at Havre, he spent five months in 
France, almost entirely in Paris. He was then in 
England for ten months, again for four weeks 
in Paris, and then made a tour through France to 
Italy, where he remained five months ; thence to 
Germany, where he saw the principal cities, stay- 
ing in Vienna, Berlin, and Heidelberg, about a 
month in each. He saw the Rhine and the Low 
Countries, and in March, 1840, returned to Lon- 
don for about three weeks, after which he sailed 
for home. His journey was an unbroken success. 
His spectacles were rosy, and Europe was full of 
enchantment for him. 

In Paris he called at once on his correspondent 
Foelix, editor of the " Revue Etrangere," but only 
to find his own knowledge of French insufficient 
for conversation. Therefore he took lodgings on 
the unfashionable side of the Seine, studied with 



EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE 19 

two teachers, and supplemented their instruction 
by attending lectures at the Sorbonne and the 
Ecole de Droit, and by visiting the theatres, where 
he followed the play with book in hand. In less 
than a month he was able to engage in a conver- 
sation on American politics and make himself 
understood in French. Early in March he took 
lodgings near the boulevards, and presented his 
letters of introduction. His life in Paris was no 
vacation; about the middle of April he wrote to 
Greenleaf that he had heard " one hundred and 
fifty or two hundred lectures on all branches of 
jurisprudence, belles-lettres, and philosophy," that 
is to say, " two or three lectures of an hour or 
more each " every morning, delivered by the great 
scholars and scientific men of France. In the 
hospitals he saw the best surgeons of the day at 
work ; at the theatres and the opera he enjoyed 
Grisi, Lablache, Dejazet, Mars ; he visited the 
museums, the galleries, and the historic places ; he 
attended the Chambers of Deputies and Peers, and 
from a reserved tribune in the former heard a 
great debate and saw the statesmen of France. 
He made the acquaintance of leading lawyers and 
was given especial privileges in the courts. He 
studied French procedure in operation, talked with 
the judges, learned to know their system of law, 
heard arguments by the most eminent advocates, 
and watched important trials. He went into society 
and met many eminent persons, — Cousin, Demetz, 
the Due de Broglie, Michel Chevalier, Madame 



20 CHARLES SUMNER 

Murat, Pardessus, David. He saw and had a long 
conversation with Sismondi. Nor did he forget to 
study the people, in the streets and at the fetes. 
The knowledge which he thus gained of the French 
language was of great service during the civil war, 
when, as chairman of the Senate committee on 
foreign relations, he wished to talk freely with 
foreign ministers. 

When on May 29, 1838, he left Paris for 
England, he was not twenty-eight and had as yet 
no reputation. Of his attitude towards English 
society he wrote to Judge Story : " Since I have 
been here I have followed a rigid rule with regard 
to my conduct ; I have not asked an introduction 
to any person; nor a single ticket, privilege, or 
anything of the kind from any one ; I have not 
called upon anybody (with one exception) until I 
had been first called upon or invited." None the 
less he was received everywhere and given a rare 
opportunity to see everything and know everybody, 
so that a brief statement of his doings in England 
becomes almost a catalogue of names and places. 

His first interest was in his profession, and there 
was scarcely an eminent lawyer or judge whom he 
did not meet. He went the circuits, was the guest 
of the bar, attended their dinners and mingled 
with barristers on terms of close acquaintance, and 
sat on the bench. He stayed with Lord Brougham 
and became familiarly acquainted with him. He 
was the guest of Denman, Vaughan, Parke, Alder- 
son, Langdale, Coltman, and other judges, and 



EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE 21 

in his letters to Judge Story and Greenleaf he de- 
scribes every judge and every prominent lawyer. 
With the attorney-general, Campbell, with Follett, 
Talfourd, Rolfe, Wilde, Crowder, Sir Frederick 
Pollock, Dr. Lushington, Charles Austin, Hay- 
ward, Adolphus, and many others he established 
cordial relations, and his ten months in England 
gave him a more extended acquaintance with Eng- 
lish lawyers than he had with those of his own 
country. 

Of literary men he met Carlyle, Wordsworth, 
Macaulay, Sydney Smith, Hallam, Parkes, Senior, 
Grote, Jeffrey, Rogers, Whewell, Landor, Leigh 
Hunt, Theodore Hook, Thomas Campbell, and 
others. Among his associates were Monckton 
Milnes, Robert Ingham, Basil Montagu, John 
Kenyon. He was the guest of Lord Durham, 
Inglis, Cornewall Lewis, Hume, and Roebuck among 
political leaders, and of Lords Fitzwilliam, Lans- 
downe, Wharncliffe, Leicester, Holland, and Car- 
lisle among the peers. Lord Morpeth, the son of the 
Earl of Carlisle, became his close friend and a 
constant correspondent in later years. Miss Mar- 
tineau, Mrs. Shelley, Mrs. Grote, Mrs. Norton, the 
Duchess of Sutherland, Joanna Baillie, Mrs. Jame- 
son, and Lady Blessington were among the ladies 
whose acquaintance he made, and as Mrs. Parkes, 
the granddaughter of Dr. Priestley, wrote : " It was 
said, after Mr. Sumner's northern journey, that he 
made the acquaintance of all the principal Whig 
families going north and of the Tories on his re- 



22 CHARLES SUMNER 

turn. V He was wondrously popular, almost like 
a meteor passing through the country. Young, 
agreeable, full of information and animation, he 
enchanted every one ; and he bore the ovation well 
and modestly." He witnessed the coronation of 
Queen Victoria and heard her first speech from 
the throne. In Parliament he heard Peel, Sheil, 
O'Connell, Lord John Russell, Lord Lyndhurst, 
Lord Brougham, Sir Edward Sugden, and other 
leaders of the day. He was toasted at various 
public dinners and replied with success. He 
even rode to hounds, with an immunity from dis- 
aster which is not the least remarkable fact in his 
foreign experience. 

There is abundant testimony from independent 
sources to Sumner's brilliant success in English 
society and to the reasons for it. Mr. Abraham 
Hayward spoke of his " entire absence of preten- 
sion," and said : " Sumner's social success at this 
early period, before his reputation was established, 
was most remarkable. He was a welcome guest 
at most of the best houses both in town and coun- 
try, and the impression he uniformly left was 
that of an amiable, sensible, high-minded, well-in- 
formed gentleman." 

Lady Wharncliffe wrote : " I never knew an 
American who had the degree of social success he 
had ; owing, I think, to the real elevation and worth 
of his character, his genuine nobleness of thought 
and aspiration, his kindliness of heart, his absence 
of dogmatism and oratorical display, his genuine 



EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE 23 

amiability, his cultivation of mind, and his appre- 
ciation of England without anything approaching 
to flattery of ourselves or depreciation of his own 
country." 

These statements of English people show 
that Sumner must have possessed very unusual 
attractions for men and women of intelligence, cul- 
tivation, and character. He carried good letters, 
but he presented very few, and letters at best only 
offer an opportunity. A man is liked or disliked 
for himself, not for his introductions. 

He left England on March 22, 1839, for a 
month in Paris. Here he showed that his sojourn 
in England had not affected his love for America. 
General Cass, the American minister, thought 
that the American position on the northeastern 
boundary question should be stated, as it was not 
understood in Europe, and at his request Sumner 
prepared for " Galignani's Messenger " an elabo- 
rate article, conciliatory in tone, which added to 
his reputation on both sides of the water. 

He next visited Italy, and spent three months in 
Rome, studying Italian literature, and learning to 
speak Italian fluently if not with entire correct- 
ness. Here first awoke the love of art from which 
in later years he derived much pleasure, and he 
became the warm friend of Crawford the sculptor. 
In Florence he met some Italian men of letters and 
saw something of Florentine society. He visited 
Venice and Milan, and entered Germany early in 
October. He spent a week in Munich, and a 



24 CHARLES SUMNER 

month in Vienna, where Prince Metternich received 
him graciously and, contrasting the youth of Amer- 
ica with the age of Europe, said : " Mais laissons 
nous jouir de notre vieillesse." Thence by Prague, 
Dresden, and Leipsic, he came to Berlin, where he 
made the acquaintance of Raumer, Ranke, Hum- 
boldt, and Savigny, and was well received by the 
Crown Prince. During five weeks in Heidelberg 
he studied German industriously, learning to un- 
derstand and to converse "tolerably." He saw 
much of Mittermaier and Thibaut, and still ambi- 
tious to be a jurist he made the most of his opportu- 
nities to meet these great teachers of the law and 
the other scholars at Heidelberg. He next made 
the trip down the Rhine, saw Cologne, Brussels, 
and Antwerp, and returned to London, March 17, 
1840. His final fortnight in London was full of 
pleasure. In his last letter to Hillard before sail- 
ing he wrote : " London is more bewitching than 
ever," and breaks off with "I must now go to 
breakfast with Sydney Smith: to-morrow with 
Rogers : next day with dear Sir Robert Inglis : the 
next with Milnes." It is not strange that he was 
loath to exchange a life so full of charm for the 
work of a lawyer in Boston. 

Judge Story, Mr. Greenleaf, and other friends 
expressed their doubts and advised his return. 
They told him that they wished to have him as 
a colleague at the Law School, but he replied that 
he needed a larger income than the school could 
offer. To Longfellow he wrote on November 10, 



EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE 25 

1839 : " I now begin to think of hard work, of 
long days filled with uninteresting toil and humble 
gains. I sometimes have a moment of misgiving 
when I think of the certainties which I abandoned 
for travel and of the uncertainties to which I return. 
But this is momentary, for I am thoroughly con- 
tent with what I have done. ... I hope people 
will not say that I have forgotten my profession 
and that I cannot live contented at home. Both 
of these things are untrue. I know my profession 
better now than when I left Boston, and I can live 
content at home." But the misgivings of his friends 
were well founded. Sumner was by nature a stu- 
dent and a scholar, with little aptitude for the life 
of a practicing lawyer. By perseverance he might 
have overcome some of his disqualifications, but 
his journey only widened the breach between him 
and his office. He had learned to love a fuller 
and freer life. If his trip did not fit him better 
for the law, however, it completed his preparation 
for the part which he was to take in the affairs of 
his country. 

It is strange, however, that he still had no pre- 
vision of what awaited him. During his years in 
Europe the slavery question had become a burning 
issue. On the day of his departure Wendell Phil- 
lips, his intimate friend, delivered the speech in 
Faneuil Hall which made him famous ; yet Sum- 
ner's letters do not refer to it and betray no inter- 
est in political questions, dealing only with the pri- 
vate life of his friends, and with literary subjects. 



26 CHARLES SUMNER 

He talks with Sismondi of slavery ; doubtless he 
discussed it with Miss Martineau, the Duchess of 
Sutherland, and others who strongly opposed it ; 
but his own feelings are not expressed, and his 
own zeal is not aroused. 



CHAPTER III 

PROFESSIONAL LIFE 

On May 3, 1840, Sumner landed in New York, 
and in September he resumed practice in earnest. 
He brought out the third volume of Story's Reports 
and was engaged in several cases, some involving 
the validity of patents. He was retained with 
Hillard by the British consul in actions against 
British officers who had searched American ships 
suspected of being slavers. He did his best to 
prove that his professional enthusiasm was not 
dampened by his foreign experience, but not with 
entire success. To Lieber he wrote : " My mind, 
soul, heart, are not improved or invigorated by the 
practice of my profession ; by overhauling papers, 
old letters, and sifting accounts in order to see if 
there be anything on which to plant an action. 
The sigh will come for a canto of Dante, a rhap- 
sody of Homer, a play of Schiller. But I shall 
do my devoir.' 1 '' Yet he was not less devoted to 
America by reason of his attachment to his foreign 
friends, and in reply to a suggestion that, after 
making a fortune, he might like to settle in Eng- 
land, he wrote : " I never expect to be rich. . . . 
If I were so, however, I should prefer to live among 



28 CHARLES SUMNER 

my own kindred, near the friends to whom I have 
grown and in sight of objects that have become as 
dear as they are familiar. Believe me when I say 
that I have no hankering after England or Eng- 
lish people." 

He found the society of Boston very pleasant, 
and was welcomed cordially in a circle which in- 
cluded Judge Story, Jeremiah Mason, Washington 
Allston, Dr. Channing, Rufus Choate, Prescott, 
Bancroft, Longfellow, Felton, Dr. Howe, the Nor- 
tons, and others. In short, in 1840-41 he led an 
agreeable but not very productive life, enlarging 
his acquaintance, and devoting himself to his pro- 
fession. 

When the Harrison campaign of 1840 deeply 
stirred the whole community, he did not share the 
excitement, and it is not entirely certain how he 
voted, though probably for Harrison. His letters 
to his brother George just before and just after the 
election prove him a very early opponent of the 
spoils system, but singularly indifferent to the 
issues of the contest. The influence of his father 
and Judge Story, both Democrats, and the example 
of the conservative men with whom he lived may 
have promoted this apathy ; but whatever the cause, 
at thirty Sumner was a cultivated and scholarly 
gentleman, with slight interest in politics. His 
ambition was not active, and the success for which 
he hoped was purely professional. 

He could not, however, live among men and 
not concern himself in their problems. He was 






PROFESSIONAL LIFE 29 

essentially unselfish, and one is struck, in read- 
ing his letters between 1841 and the summer of 
1845, with the breadth of his sympathies, the 
warmth of his feelings, the catholicity of his tastes. 
He corresponded constantly with his friends on 
both sides of the ocean. He interested himself in 
all their projects, lent them cordial assistance, 
rejoiced in their success, and was ever ready to 
praise them generously. He spoke ill of none, and 
showed no trace of jealousy nor of the selfishness, 
indolence, or preoccupation which leads men to 
neglect the calls of private or public duty. To 
help Crawford he raised the money to buy his 
Orpheus for the Boston Athenaeum, and secured 
him many commissions. He brought substantial 
aid to Horace Mann in his struggle to improve the 
methods of education in Massachusetts. He was 
strongly interested in Dr. Howe's work for the 
blind. He rejoiced in the success of Longfellow's 
poems, of Hillard's oration before the Phi Beta 
Kappa society at Cambridge, of Prescott's " Con- 
quest of Mexico," and in his letters he recounts with 
sincere delight the praises which they received. Dr. 
Howe, who was one of Sumner's warmest friends, 
wrote to him : — 

" I know not where you may be or what you may 
be about; but I know what you are not about. 
You are not seeking your own pleasure or striving 
to advance your own interests ; you are, I warrant 
me, on some errand of kindness — some work for 
a friend or for the public." 



30 CHARLES SUMNER 

It was thus intellectually impossible for Sumner 
not to be interested in every great question which 
divided the community, and soon we find in his 
letters decided views on slavery and the questions 
arising from anti-slavery agitation. He was drawn 
into the contest gradually, and only by his sense 
of public duty. 

After the treaty of 1841 between Great Britain, 
Russia, Austria, and Prussia for the suppression 
of the slave trade, the slavers often hoisted the 
American flag to avoid arrest and search. Any 
vessel belonging to the treaty powers might easily 
defy their authority if this ruse protected it against 
search, and England therefore claimed the right to 
stop and examine suspected vessels. If they were 
found to be American, no right to interfere with 
them was asserted. This claim led to a diplomatic 
discussion, and Sumner supported the English con- 
tention in two careful articles. On the same side 
were Kent, Story, Prescott, and Ruf us Choate ; but 
Webster, then secretary of state, took the opposite 
view, and England tacitly waived her claim. 

About this time a number of slaves on the way 
from Hampton Roads to New Orleans in the brig 
Creole mutinied, and carried the vessel into Nas- 
sau. There by English law the slaves became free, 
and the British government refused to surrender 
them. Mr. Webster maintained that, as their free- 
dom was won by mutiny, the British government 
was bound by the comity of nations to aid the offi- 
cers of the ship in asserting their authority and not 



PROFESSIONAL LIFE 31 

to interfere with the status of persons on board. 
Dr. Channing in a vigorous pamphlet attacked this 
position, and Sumner, who assisted in preparing 
it for the press, was strongly enlisted in support 
of Dr. Channing, and expressed his views in con- 
versation, in letters, and in the press. 

He followed with admiration and sympathy the 
course of John Quincy Adams in his heroic and 
persistent struggle for the right of petition. He 
was as yet only a student, but his study of the 
questions which constantly arose was rapidly pre- 
paring him to act. 

When the Boston " Advertiser " took the ground 
that slavery was a local institution concerning only 
the inhabitants of the slave States, Sumner replied 
on January 10, 1843, saying : — 

" The opponents of slavery in the free States 
recognize the right of all States to establish within 
their own borders such institutions as they please ; 
and they do not seek, either through their own legis- 
latures or through Congress, to touch slavery in 
the States where it exists. But while they abstain 
from all political action in these States, they do not 
feel called upon to suppress their sympathy for the 
suffering slave, nor their detestation of the system 
which makes him a victim. . . . Slavery is, on sev- 
eral grounds, distinctly within the jurisdiction of the 
United States, of which the free States are a part. 
It is a national evil, for which to a large extent 
the nation and all its parts are responsible, and 
which to a large extent the nation may remove." 



32 CHARLES SUMNER 

As legitimate subjects of discussion in the free 
States he named slavery in the District of Colum- 
bia, slavery in the territories, the slave trade be- 
tween our own ports, the rendition of fugitive 
slaves, the laws of the slave States abridging the 
rights of colored persons who were citizens of the 
free States, the conditions to be made on admitting 
new States, and the amendment of the Constitu- 
tion. 

" It cannot be doubted," he said, " that the Con- 
stitution may be amended so that it shall cease 
to render any sanction to slavery. The power to 
amend carries with it the previous right to inquire 
into and discuss the matter to be amended, and 
this right extends to all parts of the country over 
which the Constitution is spread, — the North as 
well as the South." 

This is a clear statement of the lines within which 
Sumner's action against slavery was always con- 
fined. 

Early in 1844 he undertook to edit Vesey's Ee- 
ports, in twenty volumes with original notes, agree- 
ing to prepare a volume every two weeks. This 
was a tremendous undertaking, under which his 
health broke down. In 1843 and 1844 he suffered 
from despondency, and after completing four vol- 
umes of the Reports, he became seriously ill in 
June, 1844. In July his friends thought that he 
was dying of consumption, the disease which had 
proved fatal to others of his family. At the end 
of the month, however, he began to recover, and 



PROFESSIONAL LIFE 33 

regained his strength so rapidly that in November 
we find him trying an important patent case against 
Franklin Dexter, which he won after eleven days 
of trial and an argument of ten hours. His spirits 
did not immediately revive with his strength, for 
we find him in August writing to Dr. Howe : — 

" Since my convalescence I have thought much 
and often whether I have any just feeling of grati- 
tude that my disease was arrested. Let me con- 
fess to you that I cannot find it in my bosom. . . . 
Why was I spared? For me there is no future, 
either of usefulness or happiness." 

His illness doubtless helped to keep him a spec- 
tator during the great campaign of 1844. He had 
no sympathy with the Whigs in their position on 
the tariff, but he shared the views of men like 
Adams and Giddings on the slavery question, and 
regarding this as the important issue he hoped for 
the election of Clay. Late in 1844 he resumed 
his work upon Vesey, of which a part had been 
edited by others during his illness, and completed 
it in the spring of 1845. With this his career as 
a lawyer practically closed. He had reached the 
threshold of his public life. 



CHAPTER IV 

ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 

Sumner's opportunity came when he was invited 
to deliver the annual oration in Boston on the 
Fourth of July, 1845. He accepted the invitation, 
and his oration gave him at once a new position 
in the community. He stated his subject thus : 
" What in our age are the true objects of national 
ambition — what is truly national honor, national 
glory ; what is the true grandeur of nations ? " 
The political situation at the time gave the subject 
" an urgent interest," for wars with Mexico about 
Texas, and with England over the northwestern 
boundary were then threatened. "Mexico and 
England," he said, " both avow the determination 
to vindicate what is called the national honor ; 
and our government calmly contemplates the arbit- 
rament of war, provided it cannot obtain what is 
called an honorable peace." Hence he was brought 
to consider the question, " Can there be in our age 
any peace that is not honorable, any war that is not 
dishonorable? " 

His oration was an argument against war, in 
which its horrors, its failure to accomplish its ob- 
jects, its wickedness, its waste, its absurdity, were 



ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 35 

all set forth. A speech in praise of peace would 
doubtless have passed unchallenged, but Sumner's 
method excited warm opposition. Seeking to be 
clear, he spoke to an audience as he thought to 
himself, without reserve or regard for the feelings 
of others. He stated the truth as he saw it, never 
thinking that the truth upon a public question 
could offend any one. The address was carefully 
prepared : it was enriched with quotations and il- 
lustrations from the history and literature of every 
nation and every time, and inspired throughout 
with a lofty purpose and sincere moral enthusiasm. 
Its statements were true and its arguments sound. 
It was more rhetorical perhaps than suits the taste 
of to-day, but its views were in harmony with those 
of Franklin, whose famous saying, "There never 
was a good war or a bad peace," has left no stain 
on his reputation for rare wisdom. 

But among Sumner's auditors were officers of 
the army, navy, and state militia, while the Wash- 
ington Light Guard, in full uniform, sat directly 
before him. These gentlemen, conscious of their 
becoming raiment, were irritated when they heard 
the orator say : " Peaceful citizens volunteer as sol- 
diers, and affect in dress, arms, and deportment 
' the pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious 
war ; ' " and when he spoke of such warriors as 
men " closely dressed in padded and well-buttoned 
coats of blue ' besmeared with gold,' surmounted by 
a huge mountain cap of shaggy bear-skin, with a 
barbarous device typical of brute force, a tiger 
painted on oilskin, tied to their backs." 



36 CHARLES SUMNER 

The regular officers felt themselves personally 
insulted by his questions : " What use is the stand- 
ing army of the United States ? What use is the 
navy of the United States ?" Not even the famous 
passage, which showed that the annual cost of the 
battleship Ohio would support four institutions like 
Harvard College, found favor in their ears, and 
their criticism of the speaker was sharp. 

The oration was received on both sides of the 
ocean with every variety of approval and disap- 
proval, but all agreed that Sumner had shown 
rare courage, high purpose, and marked eloquence. 
From that time he was strong in the support of 
generous youth. He had learned his own power 
as an orator, until then not suspected ; he had 
found that there was an audience ready to sympa- 
thize with his highest aims, and he stepped at once 
into the position of a recognized leader. 

While he was delivering his address in the Tre- 
mont Temple, the convention was assembling in 
Texas to ratify her annexation to the United 
States, and to frame her constitution. The great 
contest which was to end in the civil war was just 
beginning. "The hour and the man "were both 
come. 

A brief review may recall the political situation. 
From the adoption of the Missouri Compromise in 
February, 1821, until January, 1836, slavery ex- 
cited no serious discussion in Congress. The wise, 
however, knew that the conflict between freedom 
and slavery was irrepressible. On May 1, 1833, 



ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 37 

Andrew Jackson, fresh from crushing nullification, 
wrote : " The tariff was only the pretext, and dis- 
union and a Southern Confederacy the real object. 
The next pretext will be the negro or slavery 
question." The great political parties ignored the 
issue, but forces were at work beyond their control. 
Lundy and Garrison began an agitation which led 
to the formation of anti-slavery societies. In a 
convention held at Baltimore in 1826, eighty-one 
such societies were represented, of which seventy- y 
three were in slaveholding communities. In Janu- 
ary, 1831, Garrison began to publish " The Liber- 
ator " in Boston. In November the New Enoland 
Anti-Slavery Society was founded. In 1833 the 
New York Anti-Slavery Society was formed, and 
a convention at Philadelphia established the Ameri- 
can Anti-Slavery Society. These societies took the 
ground that slavery was wrong and should at once 
be abolished ; that the existing States had the 
exclusive right to legislate within their own limits, 
but that Congress had and should exercise the 
power to suppress the slave trade between the 
States, and to abolish slavery in the District of 
Columbia and in the territories. A single sen- 
tence from the declaration of principles adopted by 
the American Society summed up their position : — 
" We also maintain that there are at the pre- 
sent time the highest obligations resting upon the 
people of the free States to remove slavery by moral 
and political action, as prescribed in the Constitu- 
tion of the United States." 



38 CHARLES SUMNER 

Thus a few private citizens of little influence and 
small means undertook to grapple with a gigantic 
evil, supported by the political, social, and business 
powers of the country. They were individually 
pure, kindly, law-abiding, actuated only by a lofty 
patriotism : they saw the wrong clearly and they 
spoke very plainly. This force operating steadily 
upon the conscience of the country began to make 
itself strongly felt about twelve years after the 
Missouri Compromise. 

In August, 1831, occurred the slave insurrection 
in Virginia led by Nat Turner, in which some sixty- 
one white persons were killed. It was promptly 
suppressed, but it left all over the South a sense of 
insecurity, " a suspicion, " as one Southern speaker 
said, " that a Nat Turner might be in every fam- 
ily," and that the materials for insurrection "were 
spread through the land, and were always ready for 
a like explosion." While, therefore, the methods 
of the abolitionists were peaceful and lawful, they 
were none the less irritating to the slaveholders, 
both because they felt the difficulty of defending 
slavery on moral grounds, and because they dreaded 
the effect of agitation upon their slaves. 

Many Southern men were opposed to slavery ; 
but the majority of the people, everywhere, were 
willing to acquiesce in a system which it seemed im- 
possible to change without a disastrous disturbance 
of business and political relations. Many thought 
with Edward Everett that " the great relation of 
servitude in some form or other, with greater or 



ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 39 

less departure from the theoretic equality of men, is 
inseparable from our nature ; " that " it is a condi- 
tion of life as well as any other, to be justified by 
morality, religion, and international law ; " and that 
it was right " to abstain from a discussion which by 
exasperating the master can have no other effect 
than to render more oppressive the condition of 
the slave ; and which if not abandoned there is 
great reason to fear will prove the rock on which 
the Union will split." To these men the abolition- 
ists seemed reckless incendiaries, endangering the 
Union and inviting general calamity without bene- 
fit to the slaves. 

The abolitionists held meetings and circulated 
papers attacking slavery. Their meetings were 
broken up, their houses were sacked, their presses 
were destroyed, their buildings burned. Garrison 
was dragged through the streets of Boston, Love- 
joy was killed in Illinois, and anti-slavery agitation 
was met by mob violence in almost every Northern 
State. These demonstrations were encouraged by 
the press, and in many cases by respectable citi- 
zens, though such violence was an admission that 
the abolitionists were breaking no law. They were 
mobbed, because they could not be prosecuted. 
Southern postmasters took anti-slavery publications 
from the mails. The Postmaster-General, Amos 
Kendall, admitted that this was illegal, but de- 
clined to condemn his subordinates for their acts, 
saying : " By no act or direction of mine, official or 
private, could I be induced knowingly to aid in 



40 CHARLES SUMNER 

giving circulation to papers of this description, 
directly or indirectly." 

The anti-slavery men sent petitions to Congress 
praying for such action against slavery as Congress 
had power to take, and these led to the struggle 
over the right of petition, in which John Quincy 
Adams won a new claim to the gratitude of his coun- 
trymen. The Twenty-fourth Congress, on May 26, 
1836, after prolonged and bitter contest, adopted 
the rule, that all petitions, memorials, or papers 
relating in any way to slavery, be laid on the table 
without being debated, printed, read, or referred, 
and that no action be taken thereon. Against this 
rule Mr. Adams waged unrelenting war until, in 
the second session of the Twenty-eighth Congress, 
it was abandoned. 

The legislatures of the Southern States called 
upon the Northern States to pass laws which 
should make anti-slavery agitation criminal, but 
such efforts to abridge the rights of citizens fed 
the flame of abolition, and attempts to enforce the 
Fugitive Slave Law intensified the popular feeling 
on both sides. The laws of Southern States, under 
which free colored men were imprisoned who were 
employed in vessels visiting their harbors, caused 
great indignation, which was very much increased 
when Samuel Hoar, sent by Massachusetts to test 
the validity of such imprisonment, was expelled 
from South Carolina. The practical result of the 
abolition movement from 1830 to 1845 was to 
create wrath on both sides, to enlist against slav- 



ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 41 

ery many excellent men who opposed it because 
it wronged the slaves, and many others because it 
endangered the rights of free citizens. The slave- 
holders, dreading discussion, undertook to prevent 
it, and hence attacked freedom of speech, the right 
of petition, the inviolability of private correspond- 
ence, and finally the right to a hearing in court. 
There was no escape from their dilemma. They 
could not prevent the discussion of slavery with- 
out depriving their fellow citizens of constitutional 
rights. They could not permit it without exposing 
slavery to the force of public opinion, which must 
inevitably destroy it. 

From the beginning the supporters of slavery 
saw that they must keep their power in the Senate, 
where States counted, not voters. Hence they re- 
sisted the admission to the Union of any free State, 
unless at the same time a slave State was added; 
and Texas, large enough for several States, natu- 
rally tempted them. No sooner was its independ- 
ence proclaimed in 1836 than Mr. Calhoun declared 
in favor of annexing it. Slavery had been abol- 
ished in Mexico in 1829, when Texas was a part 
of that country ; but Texas had been settled largely 
by emigrants from the Southwestern States, who 
took their slaves with them, so that slavery existed 
there when it became independent. The election of 
President Harrison in 1840 delayed the agitation 
for annexation, but in 1843 President Tyler's ad- 
ministration was found friendly to the scheme, and 
the movement began in earnest. Mr. Upshur, the 



42 CHARLES SUMNER 

secretary of state, in August, 1843, wrote to our 
diplomatic representative in Texas that "few 
calamities could befall this country more to be 
deplored than the abolition of slavery in Texas ; " 
and three months later he said: " We regard annex- 
ation as involving the security of the South." 
Mr. Calhoun succeeded Mr. Upshur in March, 
1844, and on April 12 he concluded a treaty of 
annexation, which was defeated in June, after a 
discussion which aroused great public excitement. 
The election of 1844 resulted in the choice of Mr. 
Polk, upon a platform which favored annexation 
at the earliest possible moment. President Tyler 
in his annual message urged immediate action, and 
at the next session of Congress a joint resolution 
annexing Texas was passed, receiving the Presi- 
dent's approval on March 2, 1845. Every friend 
of slavery regarded the result as a great victory ; 
every friend of freedom was cast down. The 
Whig party as a whole had opposed the measure, 
while the Democrats supported it. 

It was in the autumn of 1845, after the annexa- 
tion of Texas and before the struggle over her 
admission as a State, that Charles Sumner entered 
the arena. The friends of slavery had succeeded 
in moving him, when the abolitionists had failed. 
His attitude was described by himself a few years 
later : — 

" I have ever entertained a strong attachment 
for the Constitution and the Union. I am a Con- 
stitutionalist and a Unionist, but have felt it to 



ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 43 

be our duty at the North, according to the words 
of Franklin, to step to the ' very verge of the Con- 
stitution in discouraging every species of traffic in 
our fellow men.' ... In the autumn of 1845, 
when the question arose of the annexation of 
Texas with a slaveholding constitution, I spoke at 
a meeting called in Faneuil Hall to oppose it. 
This was the first political meeting in which I had 
ever taken any part ; nor had I ever before sought 
to express in public my opposition to slavery. In 
short, there had never before been any occasion in 
which I was disposed to participate. I had no 
relish for the strife, nor did I coincide in views 
with those who conducted the anti-slavery move- 
ment." 

The autumn of 1845 was a critical time. As 
the free States had a majority in the House, many 
"Whig leaders felt that the admission of Texas as a 
slave State could be prevented. Early in that year 
the Massachusetts legislature had denied the law- 
fulness of the annexation, and had declared the 
opposition of the State to the extension of slavery. 
The most conservative classes supported this posi- 
tion. Up to this time the Whigs of Massachusetts 
had been substantially united. When, however, the 
resolution of annexation had passed, differences at 
once appeared. The Whig leaders desired to take 
up other questions, as was indicated by Mr. Win- 
throp's toast on the Fourth of July, " Our Coun- 
try, however bounded ; " but the younger members 
of the party, led by Charles Francis Adams, John 



44 CHARLES SUMNER 

G. Palfrey, Henry Wilson, E. R. Hoar, R. H. 
Dana, Jr., and others were determined to oppose 
the admission of Texas with a slave constitution. 
Sumner was made a member of a state committee 
appointed to organize the opposition. In the work 
of this committee, he took an active part, and 
drew the resolutions presented at a meeting in 
Faneuil Hall, on November 4, 1845. These reso- 
lutions, which were his first contribution to the 
anti-slavery contest, are characteristic. His whole 
argument, unchanged thereafter during his life, 
rested on his first proposition : that " the Govern- 
ment and Independence of the United States are 
founded on the adamantine truth of Equal Rights 
and the Brotherhood of All Men, declared on the 
4th of July, 1776, a truth receiving new and con- 
stant recognition in the progress of time, and which 
is the great lesson from our country to the world." 

Among the other recitals appear in immediate 
sequence the following : " And lohereas the slave- 
holders seek annexation for the purpose of increas- 
ing the market of human flesh and for extending 
and perpetuating slavery ; — 

" And whereas by the triumph of this scheme, 
and by creating new slave States within the limits 
of Texas, the slaveholders seek to control the po- 
litical power of the majority of freemen represented 
in the Congress of the Union." 

The first statement presents the view and uses 
the language of the abolitionists, the second the 
argument which appealed to the Whigs as a po- 



ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 45 

litical party. The resolutions were a vigorous pro- 
test against annexation on every moral and po- 
litical ground, and Sumner supported them in a 
temperate speech, important only as being the first 
public statement of his opposition to slavery. 

The movement failed of its immediate object, 
for in the December following Texas was admit- 
ted as a slave State. But its political conse- 
quences were far-reaching, for it divided the 
Whigs of Massachusetts into two parties, some- 
times called the " Conscience Whigs " and the 
"Cotton Whigs," and the breach constantly 
widened until the birth of the Republican party. 
Sumner appreciated the situation fully. In No- 
vember, 1845, he wrote : " The spirit of anti- 
slavery promises soon to absorb all New England. 
Massachusetts will never give her vote for another 
slaveholder. The cotton lords will interfere, but 
they will at last be borne away by the rising tide." 

Events moved rapidly, and annexation was 
speedily followed by the Mexican war. General 
Taylor's advance into Mexican territory led to a 
slight skirmish; whereupon the President sent a 
message to Congress saying that " war exists, and, 
notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by 
the act of Mexico herself," and asking for money. 
An appropriation bill, reciting that " by the act of 
the Republic of Mexico a state of war exists be- 
tween that government and the United States," 
was passed, with only fourteen dissenting votes in 
the House and two in the Senate. John Davis of 



46 CHARLES SUMNER 

Massachusetts voted against it in the Senate, and 
in the House, J. Q. Adams, with all the other Mas- 
sachusetts members present except two, of whom 
one was Robert C. Winthrop. 

The Whigs who voted for the bill were con- 
demned by many leaders of the party, and nowhere 
more strongly than in Massachusetts. Winthrop, 
whose inherited position and natural abilities had 
early given him prominence, was especially criti- 
cised and his action was contrasted with that 
of Adams. This feeling was first expressed 
publicly in an editorial written by Charles Fran- 
cis Adams in the "Daily Whig." The "Ad- 
vertiser," the recognized champion of the Whig 
organization, replied, and then at the request of 
friends Sumner took part in the discussion, but 
with reluctance, for his relations with Winthrop 
had been pleasant, and he did not enjoy personal 
criticism. He felt strongly, however, and once 
enlisted he wrote as he felt. He expressed for 
Winthrop the "personal regard, justly due to 
his accomplishments and his many virtues," but 
condemned his vote and questioned his motives, 
saying : " I cannot doubt the integrity of his 
character; but I fear that some thoughts little 
worthy of a Christian statesman have intruded 
upon his mind. I fear that he was unwilling to be 
found alone in the company of truth ; or that he 
would not follow truth in the company of those 
few men who bore the stain of anti-slavery ; or that 
the recollection of the unpopularity of those who 



ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 47 

opposed the late war with England frightened him 
from his propriety." 

The " Advertiser " retorted, and Sumner in the 
" Courier " repeated his condemnation. These 
articles were not signed, but Sumner wrote to 
Winthrop avowing his authorship, and expressing 
his hope that differences on a public question 
would not affect their private relations. Winthrop 
replied that Sumner had done him injustice, and ap- 
parently had intended to be personally offensive ; 
adding that he regretted the disturbance of their 
relations, and hoped that changed circumstances 
might reestablish them. 

Sumner's reply was so characteristic that a few 
words may be quoted : " In the great public ques- 
tions, on which we are for the moment separated, 
I had hoped, perhaps ignorantly and illusively, 
that an honest, conscientious, and earnest discus- 
sion, such as the magnitude of the occasion seemed 
to require, might be conducted without the sug- 
gestion of personal unkindness on either side. . . . 
But the act with which your name has been so 
unhappily connected is public property. Espe- 
cially is it the property of your constituents, whose 
conscience you represented. I do feel, my dear sir, 
that holding the sentiments on this subject which 
I do, and which seem to be general in our commu- 
nity, it was a duty to direct them distinctly, une- 
quivocally, and publicly against the act." 

After this note was written, and before Winthrop 
replied, Sumner published a third article, in which 



48 CHARLES SUMNER 

he said that Winthrop's vote had " given his sanc- 
tion to one of the most important acts, as it is 
unquestionably the most wicked act, in our his- 
tory," and after describing the terrible concomi- 
tants and consequences of war, proceeded : " All 
this misery has the sanction of your vote, Mr. 
Winthrop. Every soldier is nerved partly by you. 
. . . Surely this is no common act. It cannot 
be forgotten on earth ; it must be remembered in 
heaven. Blood ! blood ! is on the hands of the re- 
presentative from Boston. Not all great Neptune's 
ocean can wash them clean." 

It is not surprising that Winthrop, in reply, 
charged Sumner with not only criticising his acts, 
but attacking his motives, and with proceeding 
" upon the offensive assumption that under some in- 
fluence of ambition or moral cowardice " he had 
"knowingly and deliberately committed an un- 
worthy and wicked act." He declined further 
personal relations with one who had questioned his 
^ integrity, adding, "My hand is not at the ser- 
vice of any one who has denounced it with such 
ferocity as being stained with blood." With this 
letter the correspondence ended, and for twenty 
years they never spoke to each other. Sumner 
continued his strictures, and the discussion widened 
the breach in the Whig party. 

Space is given to this incident only for the 
light which it throws upon Sumner's character 
and methods. It is impossible not to share Win- 
throp's feeling, that Sumner's language was incon- 



ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 49 

sistent with the continuance of their personal 
relations. With many men, the desire to retain 
such relations in private, while making such attacks 
in public, would imply insincerity. But Sumner 
really thought that such language might properly 
be used where men of equal integrity differed on a 
public question ; that he could discuss whether his 
opponent was governed by expediency or coward- 
ice, and that his opponent would regard it as an 
impersonal question of general human interest. 
This inability to realize his adversary's feelings 
led him often to use strong expressions appro- 
priate to the action attacked, and as often to be 
surprised that his words were considered offensive. 
His nature was affectionate and kindly, and he was 
absolutely sincere, but he lacked the sense of humor, 
and this perhaps explains why he so innocently 
gave such bitter offense. Living the life of a 
student, and much alone, he occupied in thought 
the historical standpoint; he applied to current 
events and contemporary men the historical treat- 
ment, and what he thought in his closet he said 
openly, unconscious apparently that no living 
man wished to anticipate the adverse verdict of 
history. The controversy with Winthrop changed 
his personal relations with many whose friendship 
he had valued, but who sympathized with his adver- 
sary. Many such ruptures ensued, especially hard 
for Sumner to bear, both because as a bachelor 
he stood more in need of friends, and because he 
enjoyed his social relations. But keenly as he felt 



50 CHARLES SUMNER 

the coldness of former friends, it never affected 
his public action. 

Sumner's next noteworthy speech was delivered 
before the Phi Beta Kappa Society, at Cambridge, 
on August 27, 1846, just after his last letter from 
Mr. Winthrop. In this he " took advantage of 
the occasion to express himself freely, especially 
on the two great questions of slavery and war," 
but his address was in form a tribute to John 
Pickering, Judge Story, Washington Allston, and 
William Ellery Channing, four members of the 
society who had lately died. He sheltered himself 
behind these names in the hope of saying what he 
thought without offending his hearers ; and his 
success was triumphant. Emerson wrote in his 
journal : " At Phi Beta Kappa, Sumner's oration 
was marked with a certain magnificence which I 
do not well know where to parallel ; " and Everett 
said : "It was an amazingly splendid affair. I 
never heard it surpassed ; I don't know that I ever 
heard it equaled." 

In September, 1846, for the first time he went 
to a caucus, and on the 23d attended as a delegate 
the Whig state convention. It was his first ap- 
pearance as a member of a political organization. 
The convention was controlled by those who wished 
to unite the party on economic and other issues 
of general policy. The anti-slavery Whigs were 
determined to array it against slavery. The man- 
agers had arranged that Winthrop should address 
the convention, but loud calls from the floor brought 



ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 51 

up Sumner, and in a powerful speech he contended 
that it was " the duty of Whigs, professing the 
principles of the fathers, to express themselves 
openly, distinctly, and solemnly against slavery — 
not only against its further extension, but against 
its longer continuance under the Constitution and 
laws of the Union." He added, "While it is 
their duty to enter upon this holy warfare it should 
be their aim to temper it with moderation, with 
gentleness, with tenderness towards slaveholders. 
These should be won if possible, rather than 
driven, to the duties of emancipation. But eman- 
cipation should always be presented as the car- 
dinal object of our national policy." Winthrop, 
in reply, emphasized the questions upon which 
the Whigs were united, the tariff, care of the pub- 
lic money, internal improvements ; and the two 
speeches brought the views of the two factions 
into sharp contrast. The resolutions were then 
presented, and the anti-slavery Whigs offered an 
amendment expressing the views of Sumner, which 
was defeated after a heated debate. 

Sumner's speech gave him a new position. It 
was a time when anti-slavery utterances were 
rare, and his temperate but unequivocal decla- 
ration of principles came with the ring of sin- 
cerity from one who thought only of his cause and 
not of his own fortunes. It appealed to a rapidly 
growing party who were tired of compromise and 
anxious to attack slavery vigorously, and it won 
for Sumner many friends among the young. The 



52 CHARLES SUMNER 

effect of the debate may be read in Whittier's 
poem, " The Pine Tree," written immediately after 
reading it. 

Winthrop was a candidate for reelection in the 
autumn of 1846, and on October 25 Sumner, 
in an open letter, arraigned him with increased 
severity for his vote on the Mexican war bill. 
Those Whigs, who were dissatisfied with Winthrop, 
decided to nominate a candidate against him, and 
their convention, in which Charles Francis Adams 
presided, and John A. Andrew was chairman of 
the committee on nominations and resolutions, se- 
lected Sumner. The suggestion, however, having 
been made that his attacks on Winthrop had been 
prompted by a desire to succeed him, Sumner felt 
that he could give no color to this suspicion and 
declined the nomination, saying : " I have never on 
any occasion sought or desired public office of any 
kind. I do not now. My tastes are alien to offi- 
cial life." Dr. S. G. Howe was then nominated, 
but Winthrop was elected by a large majority. 
Sumner took a prominent part in the campaign 
and made a speech justifying the opposition to 
the Mexican war. This must interest all, who 
believe that a patriot is not always bound to sup- 
port the government of his country in war, for 
it quotes from speeches of Chatham, Burke, Fox, 
and Englishmen like these during the American 
Revolution, in which the true duty of a patriot is 
defined by men whose sincere patriotism has never 
been doubted. 



ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 53 

Thus in a single year, from a private citizen 
little interested in politics, Sumner had become 
an anti-slavery leader in Massachusetts. He could 
not be half-hearted, and already in January, 1847, 
friends were counseling moderation. He continued 
to practice law, but his heart was in the contest for 
freedom. During 1847 he wrote in the newspapers 
against the war and against slavery. On Febru- 
ary 4, in Faneuil Hall, he urged the immediate with- 
drawal of our troops from Mexico. A fortnight 
later he delivered a lecture on " White Slavery in 
the Barbary States," in which, while painting the 
horrors of white slavery, he made it clear that it 
was not the color of the victim which made slavery 
abominable, and answered the familiar pro-slavery 
arguments by showing that when used by Algerines 
their fallacy was evident. He dealt solely with the 
slavery of whites, only alluding to the fact that the 
Algerines still had many black slaves enduring 
the same hardships. It was an adroit and very 
effective object lesson. 

The year 1847 was important politically as the 
year preceding a presidential election. The Mexi- 
can war was in successful progress and its oppo- 
nents were strongly aroused. Sumner had pre- 
pared some resolutions against it in the spring, 
though his authorship was unknown, and these with 
slight amendments had been adopted by the legis- 
lature. He offered substantially the same resolu- 
tions at a Whig meeting in Boston. They declared 
the war unconstitutional, unjust, and detestable, 



54 CHARLES SUMNER 

opposed further expenditure for it, called for the 
withdrawal of our troops, and opposed the annex- 
ation of any territory either by conquest or indi- 
rectly as indemnity. Sumner and C. F. Adams 
supported them, but they were laid on the table. 
Sumner, however, was placed at the head of the 
delegation, numbering more than one hundred mem- 
bers, which was sent by the meeting to the state 
convention. 

On September 29, when the convention met 
Daniel Webster was present, a candidate for the 
next presidential nomination and seeking the in- 
dorsement of his own State. In a speech to the 
convention, he took ground against the extension 
of slavery, but was evidently averse to affirmative 
anti-slavery action. The resolutions declared the 
unalterable opposition of Massachusetts to any 
acquisition of territory unless on condition that 
slavery should be prohibited therein ; but the anti- 
slavery forces were not satisfied, and John G. Pal- 
frey, a member of Congress, offered a resolution, 
prepared in conference with Sumner and others, 
" that the Whigs of Massachusetts will support no 
men for the office of president and vice-president 
but such as are known by their acts or declared 
opinions to be opposed to the extension of slavery." 
This was done, as Sumner subsequently stated, " in 
the hope of making opposition to the extension 
of slavery a political test at the next presidential 
election." Adams and Sumner supported Palfrey, 
and Winthrop opposed because the resolution would 



ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 55 

divide the party and elect a Democratic president. 
The convention followed Winthrop, but the pur- 
pose of the minority was not affected. Palfrey's 
resolution contained the principle upon which 
a new party was soon to be founded, and in 
his speech Sumner said : " Be assured, sir, what- 
ever the final determination of this convention, 
there are many here to-day who will never yield 
support to any candidate for presidency or vice- 
presidency who is not known to be against the ex- 
tension of slavery, even though he have received 
the sacramental unction of a ' regular nomination.' 
We cannot say, with detestable morality, ' Our 
party, right or wrong.'' The time has gone by 
when gentlemen can expect to introduce among us 
the discipline of a camp. Loyalty to principle is 
higher than loyalty to party." This contest ended 
the struggle within the Whig party. The time was 
ripe for independent action. 

When Congress met in December Winthrop 
was the Whig candidate for Speaker, and was 
elected, though Giddings, Palfrey, and Tuck, anti- 
slavery Whigs, refused to support him. Palfrey 
was attacked sharply in Massachusetts for voting 
against Winthrop and also for voting against re- 
moving the postmaster of the House, who was a 
Democrat, and Sumner warmly defended both 
votes, stating the true principle of civil service 
reform most concisely. 

"It is proper that with a change of policy, as in- 
dicated by a change of parties, the important func- 



56 CHARLES SUMNER 

tionaries, who may impress their peculiar opinions 
upon the country, should be changed. But it is 
not just or proper that the humbler office-holders, 
who cannot in any way influence those matters on 
which parties hinge, should be driven with every 
political change from the duties to which they have 
just become accustomed, and in this way, perhaps, 
be deprived of their daily bread." 

Early in 1848 the Mexican war was ended by 
the treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, which ceded to 
the United States New Mexico and Upper Cali- 
fornia in return for a payment of fifteen million 
dollars. Should this new area be free or slave soil ? 
This question had been raised early in the war. 
The President in his message of August 8, 1846, 
asking for an additional appropriation, indicated 
that the war would result in a change of bound- 
aries, and when the appropriation bill came before 
the House David Wilmot, a Democrat, offered as 
an amendment the famous " Wilmot Proviso," 
prohibiting slavery forever in any territory acquired 
from Mexico. This gave rise to a contest between 
the House and the Senate which lasted through two 
sessions of Congress. The result left the question 
undecided, and when the new territory, nearly as 
large as the thirteen original States, became ours, 
the presidential campaign of 1848 had begun. 
The territory came to us free. Should it remain 
so ? This was the most important question before 
the country. Whigs and Democrats alike recog- 
nized that a decided position would alienate some 



ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 57 

of their followers, for there was serious disaffec- 
tion in both parties. 

The Democratic convention nominated Lewis 
Cass, who had declared against the Wilmot Pro- 
viso, on a platform which did not deal with the 
question, but denied the power of Congress to 
interfere with or control the domestic institutions 
of the States. The Whig convention was even 
more diplomatic. It nominated General Taylor, 
at once a successful general and a Southern slave- 
holder, and adjourned without adopting any plat- 
form, — silent on the great question of the day. 
A resolution in favor of the Wilmot Proviso 
was voted down. Taylor was put forward as " the 
people's candidate," "without regard to party 
limits or party questions," and he claimed " the 
right to look to the Constitution and the high inter- 
ests of " the country " and not to the principles of 
a party " for his " rules of action." The Whig 
party thus sought to evade the real issue and to 
achieve party success by ignoring principles. Clay 
and Webster, themselves candidates, felt the igno- 
miny of the situation and did not disguise their 
feelings. Lowell in the " Biglow Papers " stated 
Taylor's position thus : — 

"Ez to my princerples, I glory- 
In hevin' nothin' o' the sort ; 
I aint a Wig, I aint a Tory, 

I 'm jest a canderdate, in short." 

To the conscientious opponents of slavery this 
surrender by the Whig party was the signal for 



58 CHARLES SUMNER 

immediate revolt, announced by Charles Allen and 
Henry Wilson in the convention itself. 

In Massachusetts the result had been anticipated. 
A conference of representative anti-slavery Whigs 
held in May decided that if the party nominated 
Taylor or any candidate whose opposition to the 
extension of slavery was not assured, they would 
oppose the nominees and call a state convention. 
A call was issued so soon as the result was known, 
and on the list of signers Charles Francis Adams 
was first and Sumner second. The convention, 
at Worcester, was attended by five thousand people. 
Sumner was very active in all the preliminary 
steps, and his speech at the convention was eloquent 
and inspiring. 

" In the coming contest," he said, " I wish it 
understood that I belong to the party of free- 
dom, — to that party which plants itself on the 
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution 
of the United States. I hear the old political saw, 
that 'we must take the least of two evils.' . . . 
For myself, if two evils are presented to me I will 
take neither. . . . There are matters legitimately 
within the range of expediency and compromise. 
. . . But the question before the country is of 
another character. This will not admit of com- 
promise. It is not within the domain of expediency. 
To be wrong- on this is to be wholly wrong. . . . 
But it is said that we shall throw away our votes 
and that our opposition will fail. Fail, sir ! No 
honest, earnest effort in a good cause can fail. It 



ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 59 

may not be crowned with the applause of men ; it 
may not seem to touch the goal of immediate 
worldly success, which is the end and aim of so 
much in life. But it is not lost. . . . Fail ! . . . 
Did the three hundred Spartans fail when in the 
narrow pass they did not fear to brave the innumer- 
able Persian hosts, whose very arrows darkened the 
sun? Overborne by numbers, crushed to earth, 
they left an example greater far than any victory, 
and this is the least we can do. Our example 
will be the mainspring of triumph hereafter. It 
will not be the first time in history that the hosts 
of slavery have out-numbered the champions of 
freedom. But where is it written that slavery 
finally prevailed ? " 

These words, uttered at the outset of Sumner's 
political career, state the rule of his life. They 
express the feelings, too, of those who led the great- 
est independent movement in our history, and give 
their reply to the argument by which all such move- 
ments are discouraged. 

Sumner threw himself into the contest with 
enthusiasm. At Buffalo, on August 9, a national 
convention nominated Martin Van Buren and 
Charles Francis Adams. Sumner, though not a 
delegate, was present and prominent in the coun- 
cils. He presided at a ratification meeting in 
Faneuil Hall, where he said that " a new party " 
had been formed whose leading principle was op- 
position to the extension of slavery and to its longer 
continuance wherever the national government was 



60 CHARLES SUMNER 

responsible for it, thus early stating the position 
soon to be taken by the Republican party. 

In the following campaign he was very active. 
He headed the list of delegates from Boston to the 
state convention of the Free-Soil party, and was 
made the chairman of the state campaign com- 
mittee. During the campaign he spoke all over 
Massachusetts, and his speeches added greatly to 
his reputation. Sometimes he spoke for three hours 
at a time without wearying his hearers, if we may 
judge from contemporary testimony, and such at- 
tention is the best proof of eloquence. 

The Free-Soilers nominated him for Congress 
against Winthrop, and in accepting the nomination 
he said : " It has been my desire and determination 
to labor in such fields of usefulness as are open to 
every private citizen, without the honor, emolu- 
ment, or constraint of office. I would show by 
example (might I so aspire !) that something may 
be done for the welfare of our race without the sup- 
port of public station or the accident of popular 
favor." Defeat was certain, but he felt bound to 
lead the forlorn hope, and his letter may well be 
commended to all who doubt the wisdom of inde- 
pendent action or feel uncertain as to the duty of 
a private citizen. 

After his nomination and before his acceptance 
Longfellow wrote in his diary : — 

" Sumner stands now, as he himself feels, at just 
the most critical point of his life. Shall he plunge 
irrevocably into politics, or not ? That is the ques- 



ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 61 

tion, and it is already answered. He inevitably 
will do so, and after many defeats will be very 
distinguished as a leader. . . . From politics as a 
career he still shrinks back. When he has once 
burned his ships, there will be no retreat. He 
already holds in his hands the lighted torch." 

He was defeated, but the campaign gave him wide 
influence and national reputation. He had met or 
corresponded with Free-Soilers in other States, and 
was recognized as the most eloquent among the 
leaders in Massachusetts, while he had acquired a 
strong hold upon men in every part of that State. 
But the loss of friends continued, and while some 
thought of Sumner charitably, others shared the 
views of a former friend who wrote : " You and I 
never can meet on neutral ground. I can contem- 
plate you only in the character of a defamer of 
those you profess to love, and an enemy to the per- 
manency of the Union." 

The year 1848 was a year of hope. All over the 
civilized world men believed that the old heaven and 
the old earth were passing away. It was a period 
of moral and political enthusiasm, and no one sym- 
pathized with the feeling of the hour more keenly 
than did Sumner. He hailed the revolution in 
France and the similar outbreaks in other countries 
as parts of a great movement for freedom, of which 
the anti-slavery agitation in America was another 
part. He anticipated its speedy triumph, but as we 
look around us his millennium still seems remote. 
Such hopes as his belong to youth. The old are apt 



62 CHARLES SUMNER 

to question whether man does improve, and whether 
history will not repeat itself indefinitely. 

The year 1849 was quiet, politically. The Free- 
Soil party kept its organization, and Sumner called 
its annual convention to order with a brief speech, 
adapting the splendid " Uhi libertas ibi patria " 
by saying, " Where liberty is, there is my party." 
As chairman of a committee he prepared an address 
to the people of Massachusetts in which the party 
was " explained and vindicated," and which put the 
Free-Soil argument with a power and directness 
well fitted to arouse public opinion. Sumner had 
laid aside the florid diction of his early orations, and 
spoke with unfaltering conviction in deadly earnest. 
He said of his cause : " It can no longer be avoided 
or silenced. To every man in the land it now says 
with clear, penetrating voice, ' Are you for freedom, 
or are you for slavery ? ' and every man in the land 
must answer this question when he votes." 

The Free-Soil position was stated thus : " Wher- 
ever we are responsible for slavery, we oppose it. 
Our opposition is coextensive with our responsi- 
bility. In the States slavery is sustained by local 
law. . . . We are not responsible for it there. . . . 
But slavery everywhere under the Constitution of 
the United States, everywhere under the exclu- 
sive jurisdiction of the national government, every- 
where under the national flag, is at our own par- 
ticular doors. . . . Nor will this responsibility cease 
so long as slavery continues to exist in the District 
of Columbia, in any territories of the United States, 



ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 63 

or anywhere on the high seas, beneath the protect- 
ing flag of the Republic." 

The campaign of 1849, though involving only state 
and local offices, cemented the Free-Soil organiz- 
ation, and kept the national issue clearly before the 
people. The direct appeal to the New England 
conscience developed anti-slavery feeling, with the 
important result that the Free-Soilers and Demo- 
crats began to combine and thus elected many 
members of the state legislature. Sumner fostered 
this inevitable union as a step in the formation of 
the new party. It was by skillfully using the bal- 
ance of power that the Free-Soilers accomplished 
results. With the Whigs they sent John P. Hale 
to the Senate from New Hampshire, and with the 
Democrats they chose Salmon P. Chase senator 
from Ohio. These signal victories presaged that 
breaking down of party lines which made the Re- 
publican 'party possible. 

During the years after his Fourth of July ora- 
tion Sumner often lectured in various towns 
throughout New England. The lyceum was then 
in its glory, with its opportunities for educating 
public opinion. In May, 1849, he spoke before the 
American Peace Society on the " War System of 
the Commonwealth of Nations," his last studied 
argument against war. In the same year he argued 
strongly before the Supreme Court of Massa- 
chusetts, that under the state constitution no dis- 
crimination on account of race or color could be 
made between children entitled to the benefit of 



64 CHARLES SUMNER 

the common schools. The court held otherwise, but 
the discrimination was removed by statute a few 
years later. His professional practice does not 
seem to have grown during the years from 1845 to 
1849. He was learning to realize his true voca- 
tion, and in obedience to the strong impulses of 
his nature was changing from a lawyer into a 
political reformer. Gradually, half unconsciously 
and at first with great reluctance, he was recogniz- 
ing his real work in life. 



CHAPTER V 

ELECTION TO THE SENATE 

The friends of slavery had hoped to extend the 
area of slave territory by the annexation of Texas, 
but they were doomed to bitter disappointment. 
Gold was discovered in California early in 1848, 
and an enormous immigration followed. Among 
the newcomers were many from the free States who 
had no love for slavery, and many from the slave 
States who, expecting to enrich themselves by their 
own toil, had no wish to compete with slave labor. 
There came also such throngs of lawless adven- 
turers that a strong government became necessary, 
and thus California was occupied by a large anti- 
slavery population demanding stable government. 

When, after the election of General Taylor, the 
second session of the Thirtieth Congress met in De- 
cember, 1848, President Polk's message stated that 
California and New Mexico were still subject to 
the provisional governments created during the 
war, but that the condition of affairs was such as 
to require the immediate establishment of perma- 
nent governments. Thus the question, which the 
Whig party had endeavored to evade, confronted 
its representatives as soon as the victory was won. 



66 CHARLES SUMNER 

The President suggested that the line of the 
Missouri Compromise should be extended to the Pa- 
cific, to which there should be no serious objection, 
since the climate and soil of these regions were such 
that slavery could not exist there. This argument, 
afterwards so often reiterated, assumed that slaves 
could be used only in a climate like that of the South- 
ern States, and in such agricultural labor as they 
performed there. This was a pure assumption and 
was not accepted by either side. 

Douglas offered bills admitting California as a 
State and organizing Minnesota, Nebraska, and New 
Mexico as territories. The bill admitting Califor- 
nia said nothing about slavery, but left the inhab- 
itants to deal with it as they chose, and they seemed 
distinctly opposed to it. Shortly after the session 
began Mr. Benton presented to the Senate a petition 
from the people of New Mexico assembled in con- 
vention, asking for the establishment of a civil 
government, and saying : " We do not desire to have 
domestic slavery within our borders ; and until the 
time shall arrive for our admission into the Union 
as a State, we desire to be protected by Congress 
against their introduction among us." 

The proposition of Douglas did not satisfy the 
Southern slaveholders, who wished to carry their 
slaves into the newly acquired territory for which 
they had fought the war, and were not willing 
to be deprived of this right by the action of the 
local population ; nor did it please the anti-slavery 
men, who had insisted upon the power and duty 



ELECTION TO THE SENATE 67 

of Congress to exclude slavery from this territory 
whatever the wishes of the local population, and 
were not likely to recede at the moment when 
such a population begged to be protected against 
slavery. The anti-slavery men were determined 
and aggressive. Though the House refused Palfrey 
permission to introduce a bill abolishing all laws 
concerning slavery and the slave trade in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, a motion made by Gott of New 
York instructing the committee on the District of 
Columbia to bring in a bill forbidding slavery in 
the District was passed by a majority of ten votes, 
though it was afterwards reconsidered, and the 
committee on territories was instructed to bring 
in bills organizing California and New Mexico 
as territories, with provisions prohibiting slavery. 
Nor were the friends of slavery idle. In the hope 
of uniting the South against the North, Calhoun 
prepared an address which was signed by forty 
members of Congress and which indicated the ques- 
tions on which battle was shortly to be joined. It 
was an attack on the North for its aggressions on 
the South, asserting that the North had systemati- 
cally disregarded its obligation to return fugitive 
slaves, insisting that slaveholders had a constitu- 
tional right to carry their slaves into the territories, 
which Congress had denied, and stating the position 
of the slavery party in these words : " We hold 
that the federal government has no right to extend 
or restrict slavery, no more than to establish or 
abolish it ; nor has it any right to distinguish be- 



68 CHARLES SUMNER 

tween the domestic institutions of one State or 
section and another, in order to favor the one or dis- 
courage the other." This address pointed out the 
danger that slavery would be abolished by constitu- 
tional amendment, and that thus the owners of 
slaves would be driven from the country. There- 
fore it urged a union of Southerners to protect 
themselves and their property. 

Calhoun's attempt was defeated by Southern 
opposition. Indeed, for the moment slavery was 
losing ground, even in its own territory. A con- 
vention in Kentucky, composed of delegates from 
twenty-four counties, pronounced it " injurious to 
the prosperity of the Commonwealth, inconsistent 
with the fundamental principles of free govern- 
ment, contrary to the natural right of mankind, 
and adverse to a pure state of morals," and de- 
clared " that it ought not to be increased, and that 
it ought not to be perpetuated in the Common- 
wealth." A Richmond newspaper announced that 
" two thirds of the people of Virginia are open and 
undisguised advocates of ridding the State of slav- 
ery." The like feeling was gaining ground in 
Missouri and other border States, and making a 
lodgment even further South. A strong pro-slav- 
ery man wrote : " Maryland, Virginia, North Caro- 
lina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri are per- 
vaded with a feeling of hostility to the institution." 
Such were the conditions just before the strug- 
gle of 1850. 

The last session of the Thirtieth Congress left 



ELECTION TO THE SENATE 69 

the territorial question untouched. President Tay- 
lor, who entered office without a policy, undertook 
in the absence of Congress to deal with California 
as its people wished, — a course which seemed nat- 
ural to a man of simple and direct character, un- 
familiar with politics. He suggested to the people 
that they organize their own government, adopt a 
constitution, and then seek admission as a State. 
A convention was called by the military governor, 
a constitution prohibiting slavery was adopted, the 
people accepted it and chose officers, the legisla- 
ture met on December 15, and a few days later 
the state government was turned over to the offi- 
cers thus elected. The result was entirely satisfac- 
tory to Taylor, and he wished to proceed in the 
same way with New Mexico. 

The Thirty-first Congress met on December 3, 
and after a long contest Howell Cobb was chosen 
Speaker of the House. The President's message 
at once introduced the unsettled question by stat- 
ing that California and probably New Mexico 
would shortly apply for admission to the Union. 
The action of California had increased the diffi- 
culty of the situation for the South, and slavery 
was clearly losing ground. On December 31 the 
anti-slavery leaders renewed the motion passed by 
the House at the last session, which instructed the 
committee on territories to bring in bills organizing 
California and New Mexico with slavery prohibited. 
On the other side Mason introduced a new fugi- 
tive slave law, while Benton brought in a bill fix- 



70 CHARLES SUMNER 

ing the boundaries of Texas and authorizing the 
payment of a considerable sum to that State for 
the release of her claims outside these limits. The 
Southern leaders began to threaten loudly that the 
passage of the anti-slavery measures would make 
secession inevitable. The student of history will 
find much that is instructive in their violent lan- 
guage, for their threats were not mere idle bluster. 
The great mass of the Southern people indeed was 
not affected, but the purpose of the leaders was 
genuine, and the experience of the country in 1861 
and on other occasions has shown how easy it is 
for a body of determined men, controlling a politi- 
cal organization and aided by the press, to carry the 
people into a movement which they do not favor. 
A disorganized majority in such a case is like a mob 
against a regiment. 

It is not surprising that the cry of disunion 
produced an effect on men in every walk of life, 
and that a strong sentiment was created in favor 
of some compromise. Under these circumstances, 
on January 29, 1850, Henry Clay brought forward 
his famous proposition of compromise, embodied in 
eight resolutions, which proposed to admit Califor- 
nia without reference to slavery ; to establish ter- 
ritorial governments in the other territory taken 
from Mexico, without permitting or excluding slav- 
ery ; to fix the western boundary of Texas on the 
Rio Grande ; to pay a certain amount of her debt 
for the relinquishment of her claims beyond that 
boundary ; to declare inexpedient the abolition of 



ELECTION TO THE SENATE 71 

slavery in the District of Columbia ; to forbid the 
importation of slaves into the District to be sold 
there or carried to other markets ; to pass a more 
stringent fugitive slave law, and to declare that 
Congress had no power to prohibit the slave trade 
between States. This meant the abandonment of 
the TVilmot Proviso, to which the legislatures of 
all the free States save Iowa stood committed; 
it intrenched slavery in the District of Colum- 
bia ; sanctioned the interstate slave trade ; enabled 
the owner to recover fugitive slaves more easily ; 
left a large territory, then free, open to the attacks 
of slavery ; and in return only recognized the fact 
that the population of California had made it a 
free State. The new Fugitive Slave Law empow- 
ered a commissioner of the United States, without 
a jury, to deliver a man into slavery upon the evi- 
dence of two witnesses that a slave had escaped, 
and an affidavit of identity, which was required to 
contain " a general description of the person so 
escaping with such convenient certainty as may be." 
The alleged slave was not allowed to testify, and 
thus a man could be deprived of his liberty 
upon evidence which would not have been ad- 
mitted, and by a procedure which would not have 
been legal, if he had been charged with the slight- 
est misdemeanor. The bill contained other severe 
provisions. It is unnecessary to repeat the his- 
tory of the struggle in Congress. The measures, 
at first defeated as a whole, were afterward passed 
separately, and substantially as Clay proposed them. 



72 CHARLES SUMNER 

Thus the South won a victory more fatal to its 
cause than defeat could have been. 

The most important feature of the struggle, so 
far as it affected Sumner, was the course of 
Webster. In his famous speech of March 7, 1850, 
avowedly for " the preservation of the Union," 
Webster supported the compromise, declaring that 
he would not vote to exclude slavery from Cali- 
fornia and New Mexico because it was already ex- 
cluded by nature, and he would not " reenact the 
will of God." He sustained the new Fugitive Slave 
Law " with all its provisions to its fullest extent." 
He condemned the opponents of the law and all 
agitators against slavery with unsparing violence, 
and instead of standing as the representative of 
freedom he became in the eyes of many the apolo- 
gist of slavery. The speech alienated members 
who had looked to him for guidance, and caused 
the deepest sorrow and indignation among anti- 
slavery men. It was a powerful influence in break- 
ing up the Whig party, and it ojaened the door of 
the Senate to Sumner. 

President Taylor opposed the compromise, firmly 
believing that California should be admitted at once 
with the constitution adopted by her citizens, and 
that New Mexico should be allowed to follow. An 
open rupture between him and leading Southern 
Whigs was imminent, when his sudden death, on 
July 9, 1850, made Millard Fillmore president. 
Fillmore appointed Webster secretary of state, and 
from that time the whole power of the adminis- 



ELECTION TO THE SENATE 73 

tration was used in favor of the compromise. Win- 
throp was appointed senator in Webster's place, 
and this created a vacancy in the House, for which 
Samuel A. Eliot was nominated by the Whigs and 
Sumner by the Free-Soilers. Webster's great in- 
fluence held the social and commercial powers of 
Boston to their party allegiance, and Eliot was 
elected in time to vote for the compromise mea- 
sures. 

The Free-Soilers of Massachusetts threw their 
whole influence against the compromise from the 
outset, and Sumner took a prominent part in the 
movement. On February 27 in Faneuil Hall they 
passed resolutions, drawn by a committee of which 
he was a member, insisting that Congress must 
prohibit slavery in the territories without conces- 
sion. They tried hard to make the legislature 
declare against the compromise, but the Whigs, 
who were in control, stood by Webster. Sumner's 
feeling is apparent in his correspondence. In Feb- 
ruary he wrote to his brother : " The bluster of the 
South is, I think, subsiding, though as usual the 
North is frightened and promises to give way. I 
hope to God they will stand firm. There is a small 
body at Washington who will not yield, — the Free- 
Soilers." After Webster's speech : " Webster 
has placed himself in the dark list of apostates." 
In May : " I am sick at heart when I observe the 
apostasies to freedom. There is one thing needful 
in our public men, — backbone." 

It was late in September when the contest in 



74 CHARLES SUMNER 

Congress ended, and its members returned to face 
the issues of the autumn campaign. In Massa- 
chusetts the question was, whether or not the State 
should approve the compromise and the course of 
Webster. On one side was the Whig organiza- 
tion, dominated by Webster and represented by 
Winthrop, who was a candidate for reelection to 
the Senate. The merchants and manufacturers, 
the capitalists, the leaders of the several great pro- 
fessions, men like Rufus Choate and B. R. Curtis, 
men of letters like Ticknor, Everett, and Prescott, 
with all the influence which such a combination 
could command, were enlisted in its support, and 
they made their disapproval of their opponents felt 
in business and in society. 

On the other side were Charles Francis Adams, 
Josiah Quincy, Horace Mann, Palfrey, Dana, 
Theodore Parker, Samuel Hoar and his sons, 
Emerson, Lowell, Whittier, Sumner, Henry Wil- 
son, and a host of others who represented the 
moral forces of Massachusetts. Perhaps nothing 
better illustrates their feeling than Emerson's re- 
mark about Webster : " Every drop of blood in 
this man's veins has eyes that look downward." 

The Fugitive Slave Law created intense indigna- 
tion throughout the North, which was increased by 
attempts to enforce it. Knowing that public opin- 
ion was against them, those who were charged with 
its execution moved with a haste and secrecy abso- 
lutely inconsistent with Anglo-Saxon ideas of lib- 
erty, and every time that a human being was seized 



ELECTION TO THE SENATE 75 

and hurried back to slavery under the forms of law, 
but without any real opportunity to defend himself, 
men were taught to hate slavery. In Massachusetts 
this feeling was especially strong. Meetings were 
held all over the State, the most important, per- 
haps, being that at Faneuil Hall " for the denun- 
ciation of the law and the expression of sympathy 
and cooperation with the fugitive." 

At the Free-Soil convention held on October 3, 
Sumner was a member of the committee on reso- 
lutions, and was reelected to the state committee. 
A question of practical politics was at once pre- 
sented. There were in both great parties strong 
opponents of slavery, who sympathized with the 
Free-Soilers, though unwilling to abandon their 
party. As Sumner writes after his defeat by 
Eliot : " A leading and popular Whig said to me 
on the morning of the election, ' I must go and 
vote against you, though I will say I should rather 
at this moment see you in Congress than any per- 
son in Boston; but I stick to my party.' " 

The bitter feeling of the Whig leaders drew the 
party line on that side very sharply. On the other 
hand the Democrats, some from sympathy with the 
Free-Soil movement, others perhaps because they 
saw an opportunity to overthrow the Whig domina- 
tion, were willing to cooperate with the Free-Soilers. 
In September, 1849, the Democratic state conven- 
tion had pronounced against " slavery, in every 
form and color." The question was whether Demo- 
crats and Free-Soilers, united upon the great issue 



76 CHARLES SUMNER 

of the campaign, should act together. Similar 
cooperation in other States had won important vic- 
tories for freedom, and Henry Wilson, chairman of 
the Free-Soil state committee, favored it in Massa- 
chusetts. At a meeting of prominent Free-Soilers 
to consider its expediency, Adams, Palfrey, Dana, 
Samuel Hoar, and others opposed coalition, while 
Wilson and others favored it. It was finally de- 
cided that no action should be taken committing 
the party, but that each member should be at lib- 
erty to act according to his own sense of propriety. 
Sumner wrote to Wilson, saying : — 

" I see no objection in point of principle to 
unions in towns, and also in counties, such as 
took place last autumn. . . . But it seems to me a 
step of questionable propriety for our state com- 
mittee or any number of Free-Soilers to enter into 
an arrangement or understanding with the Demo- 
crats as to the disposition of offices. As at present 
advised I should be unwilling to be a party to any 
such bargain." 

It was impossible at such a time to keep men 
who thought alike from acting together. The 
Democrats had accepted the principles of the 
Free-Soilers, and the latter accepted their votes. 
In towns and senatorial districts the combination 
was general and the campaign was thorough and 
intense. Sumner spoke in various parts of the 
State, but his most important speech was made at 
Faneuil Hall on November 6. Of it he himself 
says : " It is sometimes said to have made Mr. 



^ 



ELECTION TO THE SENATE 77 

Sumner senator. More than anything else it de- 
termined his selection by the Free-Soil party shortly 
afterwards as their candidate. On the other hand 
it was often pronounced ' treasonable,' and in sub- 
sequent discussions at Washington, sometimes in 
newspapers and repeatedly in the Senate, it was 
employed to point the personalities of slave mas- 
ters and their allies." It put into clear and 
strong words what anti-slavery men were think- 
ing ; reflected the intense feeling of the hour, and 
showed the people a leader with courage and ability 
to speak for them. 

He began by stating his position on the coalition 
as follows : — 

" At the outset let me say that it is because I 
place freedom above all else that I cordially con- 
cur in the different unions or combinations through- 
out the Commonwealth. . . . The friends of free- 
dom may arbitrate between both the old parties, 
making freedom their perpetual object, and in this 
way contribute more powerfully than they other- 
wise could to the cause which has drawn us to- 
gether." 

He denounced the monstrous provisions of the 
Fugitive Slave Law, and declared it unconstitutional 
for reasons which he stated at length. His counsel 
to resist it was often brought up against him, and 
should be quoted : — 

" / cannot believe that this bill will be executed 
here. . . . But let me be understood ; I counsel no 
violence. There is another power stronger than 



78 CHARLES SUMNER 

any individual arm which I invoke : I mean that 
irresistible public opinion, inspired by love of God 
and man, which, without violence or noise, gently 
as the operations of nature, makes and unmakes 
laws. Let this public opinion be felt in its might, 
and the Fugitive Slave bill will become every- 
where among us a dead letter. No lawyer will aid 
it by counsel, no citizen will be its agent ; it will 
die of inanition, like a spider beneath an exhausted 
receiver. 

" It rests with you, my fellow citizens, by word 
and example, by calm determination and devoted 
lives, to do this work. From a humane, just, and 
religious people will spring a public opinion to keep 
perpetual guard over the liberties of all within our 
borders. ... It shall prevent any slave hunter 
from ever setting foot in this Commonwealth. . . . 
I would not touch his person. Not with whips 
and thongs would I scourge him from the land. 
The contempt, the indignation, the abhorrence of 
the community, shall be our weapons of offense. 
Wherever he moves he shall find no house to re- 
ceive him, no table spread to nourish him, no wel- 
come to cheer him. . . . Villages, towns, and cities 
shall refuse to receive the monster." 

In answer to the argument of the Whigs that 
the compromise ended the slavery contest, he 
said : — 

" We are told that the slavery question is set- 
tled. Yes, settled — settled, — that is the word. 
Nothing, sir, can be settled which is not right. 



ELECTION TO THE SENATE 79 

Nothing can be settled which is against free- 
dom." 

His declaration of principles may be quoted, as 
the people of Massachusetts in effect made it their 
platform when they sent Sumner to the Senate. 

" We demand, first and foremost, the instant 
repeal of the Fugitive Slave bill. 

" We demand the abolition of slavery in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia. 

" We demand of Congress the exercise of its 
time-honored power to prohibit slavery in the ter- 
ritories. 

" We demand of Congress that it shall refuse to 
receive any new slave State into the Union. 

" We demand the abolition of the domestic slave 
trade, so far as it can be constitutionally reached, 
but particularly on the high seas under the na- 
tional flag. 

" And generally we demand from the national 
government the exercise of all constitutional pow- 
ers to release itself from responsibility for slavery. 

" And yet one thing further must be done. The 
slave power must be overturned, so that the na- 
tional government may be put openly, actively, 
and perpetually on the side of freedom." 

A few extracts from a single other passage are 
always pertinent : " The friends of freedom cannot 
lightly bestow their confidence. They can put 
trust only in men of tried character and inflexible 
will. Three things at least they must require : 
the first is backbone ; the second is backbone ; and 



80 CHARLES SUMNER 

the third is backbone. When I see a person of 
upright character and pure soul yielding to a tem- 
porizing policy, I cannot but say, He waiits back- 
bone. When I see a person talking loudly against 
slavery in private, but hesitating in public and 
failing in the time of trial, I say, He wants back- 
bone. When I see a person leaning upon the ac- 
tion of a political party and never venturing to 
think for himself, I say, He wants backbone. 
When I see a man careful always to be on the side 
of the majority, and unwilling to appear in a mi- 
nority, or, if need be, to stand alone, I say, He 
wants backbone. Wanting this they all want that 
courage, constancy, firmness, which are essential to 
the support of principle. Let no such man be 
trusted." 

The campaign resulted in the triumph of the 
coalition. There was indeed no choice for gover- 
nor ; but the combined Democrats and Free-Soil- 
ers had a majority in the legislature. Never had 
the Whig party of Massachusetts known so crush- 
ing a defeat. From the outset the object of the 
Free-Soilers had been to elect a senator, and now, 
when the victory was won, Sumner was their choice. 
The newspaper organ of the party said that this 
was "because, while true as the truest to Free- 
Soil principles, he was supposed to be less obnox- 
ious than any prominent Free-Soiler in the State 
to the Democratic party. He was never identified 
with any of the measures of the Whig party, ex- 
cept those relating to slavery. He never entered 



ELECTION TO THE SENATE 81 

a Whig state convention except to sustain the sen- 
timent, not of the Whig party alone, but of Massa- 
chusetts against the annexation of Texas and the 
Mexican war." 

Sumner's confidential letters, and the contempo- 
rary judgment of those who knew him best, forti- 
fied by the opinion of political opponents, leave 
no doubt that he had never desired the place. To 
Charles F. Adams, with whom he was in the clos- 
est relations, he wrote : " My dreams and visions 
are all in other directions. In the course of my 
life I have had many, but none have been in the 
United States Senate. In taking that post I must 
renounce quiet and repose forever ; my life hence- 
forward would be in public affairs. I cannot con- 
template this without repugnance." But from his 
associates in Massachusetts, from Free-Soilers else- 
where, from leaders like Chase and Giddings in 
Washington, came a pressure which he could not 
resist, and when the Free-Soil members of the 
legislature by unanimous vote, or according to an- 
other account by eighty-four votes out of eighty- 
five, selected him as their candidate, he consented 
to stand. 

The failure to elect the state officers by the peo- 
ple threw the election into the legislature, and the 
Free-Soilers and Democrats at separate caucuses 
chose committees to determine how the votes of the 
two parties should be cast. It was decided that 
the Democrats should name the state officers with 
some exceptions, and also the senator for the short 



82 CHARLES SUMNER 

term which expired March 4, 1851, while the 
Free-Soilers should name the senator for the long 
term of six years. The belief, however, that Sum- 
ner was more acceptable to the Democrats than 
any other Free-Soiler proved unfounded. His ad- 
vanced position on the slavery question, and espe- 
cially his speech against the Fugitive Slave Law, 
made some Democrats very reluctant to accept him, 
lest they might hazard their relations with the na- 
tional organization by helping to elect a man whom 
the Democratic journals of Boston described as " a 
disunionist." He secured a two thirds vote in the 
Democratic caucus and his nomination was made 
unanimous with only a few dissenting votes, but 
after the other officers had been elected by the 
combined votes of Free-Soilers and Democrats, it 
was found that enough Democrats in the House to 
prevent his election refused to vote for him. 

There followed a struggle from January 14 till 
April 24, 1851. During the contest he was op- 
posed bitterly by the Whigs, who denounced the 
coalition as an iniquitous conspiracy, and, smart- 
ing under their recent defeat, spared no pains to 
take from the Free-Soilers the prize of victory. 
Webster exerted all his influence and seems to 
have been joined by Lewis Cass, who represented 
a certain number of Democrats. Caleb Cushing 
led the Democratic opposition in the House, and it 
often seemed that this combination would be suc- 
cessful. But the Democrats did not feel satisfied 
with their position in refusing to carry out their 



ELECTION TO THE SENATE 83 

agreement after all their own candidates had been 
elected, and they attempted to meet the difficulty 
by offering to vote for some other Free-Soil candi- 
date like Stephen C. Phillips. Governor Boutwell 
urged a change, and some of Sumner's own sup- 
porters were inclined to accept the suggestion. 
Sumner himself wrote to Wilson : " In this mat- 
ter, I pray you, do not think of me. . . . Aban- 
don me, then, whenever you think best, without 
notice or apology. The cause is everything. I am 
nothing." The Free-Soilers, however, stood firm, 
believing Sumner their best man, and also fearing 
that a change might give the Democrats an excuse 
for breaking the compact. 

Failing with his supporters, his opponents next 
sought some concession from Sumner himself. 
He was asked by the editor of the " Times," a 
Democratic journal of Boston, to write a letter 
modifying his speech against the Fugitive Slave 
Law, so as to make it easier for the Democrats to 
support him. He declined, and when the editor 
asked him how he would like to see that speech 
reprinted in the " Times," replied that nothing 
would give him greater pleasure. The speech was 
published the next day, with the statement that it 
contained Mr. Sumner's deliberate opinions and 
the expression of a hope that the Democratic mem- 
bers of the legislature would read it, " and then 
consider whether it is not their duty to vote for 
some other person." The Free-Soil organ accepted 
the issue, and likewise published the speech, 



s 



84 CHARLES SUMNER 

adopting every word of it with enthusiastic ap- 
proval. Individual Democrats and committees 
urged him to give some assurance that he would 
not agitate the slavery question in the Senate, or 
would give other questions precedence ; but he 
replied that he had not sought the office, and if 
it came to him, it must come to an absolutely 
independent man whose opinions were known, and 
who would go to the Senate resolved to assert them. 
This inflexible determination of Sumner's sup- 
porters, with considerable pressure from the con- 
stituencies, finally triumphed, and so many of Sum- 
ner's opponents yielded as to secure his election. 

The New York " Tribune," then in close alliance 
with the Whig party, thus spoke of his victory : — 

" We do not know the man who has entered the 
Senate under auspices so favorable to personal in- 
dependence as Mr. Sumner. He has not sought 
the office, has not made an effort for its acquisi- 
tion. No pledge has he given to any party or any 
person upon any question or measure." 

Sumner received the news of his election at 
the house of Mr. Adams, " with as perfect calm- 
ness and absence of any appearance of excitement 
as was possible. There was no change in his face 
or in his manner, and the latter was one of per- 
fect quiet and self-possessed dignity." On the 
same day Longfellow writes : " He is no more 
elated by his success than he has been depressed 
by the failure heretofore, and evidently does not 
desire the office." 



ELECTION TO THE SENATE 85 

All over the State and the country the result was 
hailed with the greatest enthusiasm by the oppo- 
nents of slavery. It was justly regarded as a signal 
victory for freedom. 

It was the unique beginning of a remarkable 
public career. The next campaign in Massachu- 
setts presented for approval the result of the coali- 
tion. Winthrop was the candidate of the Whigs 
for governor, while the Democrats renominated 
Governor Boutwell. Sumner took no part in the 
contest, both because the propriety of his own elec- 
tion was involved, and because he desired to shun 
further personal conflict with Winthrop. The 
excitement was intensified by the feeling over the 
Fugitive Slave Law, and again the coalition car- 
ried the State. Boutwell was reelected by the 
legislature, and those Democrats who had refused 
to support Sumner were defeated. When, there- 
fore, he took his seat in the Senate on Decem- 
ber 1, 1851, he went there the fully accredited 
representative of Massachusetts. 



CHAPTER VI 

FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE 

The anti-slavery cause had two unfaltering sup- 
porters in the Senate before Sumner entered it, 
John P. Hale of New Hampshire and Salmon P. 
Chase of Ohio. Hale had great ability and cour- 
age, firm principles, and a caustic wit which made 
him a power in debate, but as compared with Sum- 
ner he was critical, not aggressive. The character 
of Chase is well known. He had far more skill as 
a politician than Sumner, and, though he was an 
earnest and uncompromising Free-Soiler, the con- 
test was to him more like a game. William H. 
Seward was still identified with the Whigs, though 
his speeches showed a clear grasp of the situation and 
did much to create and develop anti-slavery feel- 
ing. Sumner brought into the Senate a new force. 
In the language of Von Hoist, " The rigid fidelity 
to principle and the fiery-spirited moral earnest- 
ness of abolitionism, united to the will and capacity 
to pursue political ends with the given political 
means, received in him their first representative in 
the Senate." He was no politician in the ordinary 
sense. He saw clearly what was right, and he de- 
voted his life with absolute singleness of purpose 



FIKST TEARS IN THE SENATE 87 

and unwavering courage to the pursuit of the ends 
which his conscience approved. To intense convic- 
tion he added a certain lightness of heart, a serene 
confidence of ultimate success. It was not so much 
that he weighed and disregarded the obstacles and 
the personal consequences which daunted other 
men, as that they did not present themselves to 
him. His gaze was fixed on a distant goal, and he 
did not stoop to look at what lay in the path. 

When Congress met in December, 1851, more 
than a year had elapsed since the passage of the 
compromise measures, and meanwhile the Admin- 
istration and the leaders of both parties — Clay 
and Webster agreeing with Cass, Buchanan, and 
Douglas — had exerted all their influence to unite 
the country in support of the compromise. The 
great material and political forces of the nation, 
with too much assistance from the church, were all 
arrayed on the same side. In January, 1851, forty- 
four members of Congress, headed by Clay, issued 
a manifesto written by Alexander H. Stephens, 
declaring that they would support no man for any 
prominent office who was not known to condemn 
disturbance of the compromise and further agita- 
tion of the slavery question. 

Never was there a more determined effort to 
"cry ' Peace ' when there is no peace." Never 
was clearer proof of Sumner's rule that " nothing 
can be settled which is not right." In both Houses 
petitions for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law 
were presented, and the law was bitterly denounced 



88 CHARLES SUMNER 

by Giddings, Horace Mann, Hale, and others, while 
Senator Butler of South Carolina declared his con- 
viction that the attempt to prevent agitation of the 
slavery question was absolutely idle. The abuses 
attending the attempts to recover fugitive slaves 
kept the public excited. Free persons were seized 
and deported as slaves. Murders, mob violence, 
and lawlessness on both sides aroused the deepest 
indignation. The rescue of Shadrach in February, 
1851, while under arrest in Boston as a fugitive 
slave, led the President to issue a proclamation 
calling upon all well-disposed citizens to aid in 
enforcing the law, and the secretaries of war and 
of the navy issued instructions in aid. Mr. Clay 
introduced resolutions calling for information, to 
which the President responded by a special mes- 
sage reciting the facts and his action, upon which 
ensued a bitter debate in the Senate. 

Nor was it only at the North that the compro- 
mise had failed. In South Carolina a convention 
declared in May, 1851, that " the State of South 
Carolina cannot submit to the wrongs and aggres- 
sions which have been perpetrated by the federal 
government and the Northern States without dis- 
honor and ruin, and that it is necessary for her to 
release herself therefrom, whether with or without 
the cooperation of the Southern States." Like 
feeling was strong in Mississippi ; but the majority 
of the Southern people were not ready for seces- 
sion, and all attempts to secure action in this di- 
rection failed. An active minority, however, re- 
fused to regard the compromise as final. 



FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE 89 

It was easier to stay the rising tide than to stop 
the discussion of slavery by paper proclamations, 
in the face of events like these. It was the indig- 
nation excited by the Fugitive Slave Law — the 
public resolve that it should be repealed — which 
sent Charles Sumner to the Senate, and which he 
went there to express. 

When he took his seat the exasperation on both 
sides was steadily growing, and the final contest 
was beginning. He made his entrance upon the 
stage just as Henry Clay was retiring, for the latter 
never entered the Senate after the first day of the 
session. 

On the same day with Sumner, Hamilton Fish 
of New York and Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio also 
entered the Senate. Chase was already his friend, 
and his relations with the families of Seward and 
Fish were cordial from the beginning. He took a 
chair on the Democratic side next to Chase. Be- 
fore him sat Butler of South Carolina, and behind 
Chase was John J. Mason of Virginia. Cass, who 
presented his credentials, was an old friend, and 
Sumner was received very pleasantly by other 
senators, by the diplomatic corps, and by many 
residents, so that he found himself amid agreeable 
surroundings. The social antipathies of Boston 
were not felt in the capital, and Boston heard of 
his " triumphant success in Washington, social 
and otherwise." In the arrangement of commit- 
tees he was placed at the foot of those on revo- 
lutionary claims and on roads and canals, which 



90 CHARLES SUMNER 

gave him scant opportunities. His first speech was 
made upon a resolution of welcome to Kossuth, 
when he came to this country after the failure of 
the Hungarian revolution. It was a graceful trib- 
ute to the great Magyar, and in it he took ground 
against any departure from our policy of non-inter- 
vention in the affairs of other nations, a position 
which many strong supporters of freedom disap- 
proved. 

His next appearance was in support of a bill 
granting land to the State of Iowa " in aid of the 
construction of certain railroads," a position which 
made him friends in the West and Southwest, but 
was used against him at home. Cheaper ocean 
postage and other questions of general interest 
engaged his attention, but it was not until the end 
of May that he said anything even remotely relat- 
ing to slavery. He felt it wise to become familiar 
with his colleagues and his surroundings, with the 
rules and atmosphere of the Senate, and to show 
that he was not " a man of one idea," — a fanatic 
at once unreasonable and unpractical. Indeed, 
nothing could have injured Sumner's influence in 
the Senate or gratified his enemies more than his 
rushing prematurely into a debate, or endeavoring 
to interject a speech against slavery into a discus- 
sion of some other subject. He did not, however, 
forget the cause to which he owed his election. 
He meant to be heard before the session closed, 
but at his own time, and not until the necessary 
preparation had been completed. 



FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE 91 

His silence was misinterpreted. Before the ses- 
sion was three months old the Whig journals began 
to taunt their opponents with Sumner's failure 
to attack slavery. Garrison, at an anti-slavery 
meeting, introduced a resolution condemning him, 
and Phillips, though opposing it and expressing 
his implicit confidence in Sumner, said, " I think 
his course at Washington impolitic and wrong." 
Other friends assured him of their perfect faith, but 
none the less impressed on him the importance of 
breaking his silence. 

As he wrote to John Jay : — 
" Had I imagined the impatience of friends, I 
would have anticipated their most sanguine de- 
sires. ... I fear nothing. I am under no influ- 
ences which can interfere with this great duty. 
From the time I first came here I determined to 
speak on slavery some time at the end of June or in 
July, and not before unless pressed by some prac- 
tical question. No such question has occurred, and 
I have been left to my original purposes." 

It soon became apparent that an opportunity to 
speak would not readily be given to him. On May 
26 he presented a memorial against the Fugitive 
Slave Law, but on seeking to say a few words he 
was interrupted by the president, and only allowed 
to proceed on his assurance that he did not propose 
to enter into any discussion. He simply announced 
his purpose to address the Senate at a later day, 
when he hoped for a hearing. 

The two great parties held their national con- 



92 CHARLES SUMNER 

ventions in June, and, differing on other questions, 
declared their support of the compromise and their 
opposition to any agitation of the slavery question 
in almost identical language. Under these circum- 
stances Sumner was obliged to make his own op- 
portunity, and when for this purpose he offered, 
on July 27, a resolution requesting the commit- 
tee on the judiciary to consider the expediency of 
reporting a bill for the immediate repeal of the 
Fugitive Slave Law, both parties were determined 
to prevent his speaking. Sumner's appeal to the 
courtesy of his associates fell on deaf ears, and his 
motion was defeated, even Hamilton Fish voting 
against it. 

This action made it very doubtful whether Sum- 
ner would be allowed to deliver his speech. Mason 
told him that he might have an opportunity " next 
term," but not at the current session. Politicians 
of both parties were anxious that he should not 
speak before the presidential election, and es- 
pecially that he should not be able to put certain 
senators on record as to the Fugitive Slave Law. 
His failure increased the anxiety of his friends at 
home, and he was thus between two fires. But he 
never changed his purpose, and in the last days of 
the session he secured the floor in the only way 
possible. The Civil and Diplomatic appropriation 
bill was under consideration, when Hunter of Vir- 
ginia moved an amendment for the payment of un- 
usual expenses in executing the laws of the United 
States. Sumner, who was prepared, at once moved 



FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE 93 

the following amendment, " provided that no such 
allowance shall be authorized for any expenses in- 
curred in executing the act of September 18, 1850, 
for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor, 
which said act is hereby repealed," and upon this 
he made a speech which occupied nearly four hours. 
It stands in his works under the title so often 
quoted, " Freedom National, Slavery Sectional." 

This speech and its reception by his opponents 
are full of instruction. It is far from bein<r an in- 
flammatory harangue, or even the ordinary speech 
of a political partisan. The present Senate on far 
less exciting questions is much more violent. It is 
an argument such as a thorough student of consti- 
tutional law and history might address to a court 
of justice. It is free from all suspicion of personal 
bitterness, and it contains no word which could 
offend a slaveholder, except as any attack upon 
slavery might irritate its supporters. The speaker 
did not dilate on the horrors of slavery, nor recite 
the crimes of slave masters. The whole subject 
was lifted above the plane of political contest into 
the serener air of eternal principles, — the atmo- 
sphere of an ideal senate. As Sumner said in his 
introductory remarks : " Slavery I must condemn 
with my whole soul ; but here I need only borrow 
the language of slaveholders ; nor would it accord 
with my habits or my sense of justice to exhibit 
them as the impersonation of the institution — Jef- 
ferson calls it the ' enormity ' — which they cherish. 
Of them I do not speak. But without fear and 



94 CHARLES SUMNER 

without favor, as without impeachment of any per- 
son, I assail this wrong." 

He showed by abundant authority that slavery 
was not recognized in the Constitution, and that 
Congress had no power to establish it. Thence 
he argued that it could not legally exist where the 
jurisdiction of the national government was ex- 
clusive. He traced the history of the provision as 
to persons " held to service or labor," arguing that 
it was not among the compromises of the Consti- 
tution, but that it was only a compact between 
the States like the kindred provision for the ex- 
tradition of criminals, and that Congress had no 
power to enforce it. He took the ground that the 
Constitution only prevented the States from mak- 
ing laws which should discharge from service or 
labor a person held thereto in any other State, and 
that the States alone had power to pass laws for 
the rendition of such persons. For these reasons 
and because it committed the great question of 
personal liberty "to the unaided judgment of a 
single petty magistrate," denying a trial by jury, 
he contended that the Fugitive Slave Law was 
unconstitutional. He cited authority for the propo- 
sition that an unconstitutional law need not be 
obeyed, and insisted that a law which c-uld not be 
enforced without outraging the public conscience 
and exciting dangerous commotions should not be 
left upon the statute-book, quoting with approval 
the remark of Senator Butler of South Carolina, 
that "a law which can be enforced only by the 
bayonet is no law." 



FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE 95 

In conclusion he maintained that a law which 
required men to stifle their natural sympathy with 
a fugitive slave was contrary to the divine law and 
not to be obeyed ; but it was passive, not active, 
resistance which he counseled. 

" By the supreme law which commands me to do 
no injustice, by the comprehensive Christian law 
of brotherhood, by the Constitution ivhich I have 
sworn to support, I am bound to disobey this act. 
Never, in any capacity, can I render voluntary aid 
in its execution. Pains and penalties I will en- 
dure, but this great wrong I will not do." 

The speech was fortified by copious quotations 
from the leaders of human thought ; it tried slavery 
and the Fugitive Slave Law by unchangeable prin- 
ciples of law, morals, and religion, and it was char- 
acterized throughout by loftiness of spirit and deep 
conviction. It was a thoroughly dignified presen- 
tation of the speaker's case, yet its delivery de- 
manded high courage. 

A debate followed in which several Southern 
senators were offensively personal, but nothing in- 
dicated that the speech had aroused any serious 
bitterness. It was received by Sumner's Free-Soil 
colleagues, and by the opponents of slavery on 
both sides *,f the water, with great enthusiasm, and 
it made ^any converts. From this time he was 
the acknowledged representative in the Senate of 
the moral forces opposed to slavery, — the embod- 
ied conscience of the anti-slavery movement. 

The adjournment of Congress a few days later 



96 CHARLES SUMNER 

set the leaders of the two parties free to enter the 
presidential campaign of 1852. Dividing upon 
all other issues, they united in declaring that the 
slavery question was finally settled by the compro- 
mise of 1850. The campaign tested severely the 
conscience of the country, for the feeling against 
slavery was shared by Whig and Democrat alike, 
yet no one could vote either party ticket without 
pledging himself, so far as a vote could pledge 
him, to do nothing against it. The Free-Soilers 
had formed alliances here with the Whigs and 
there with the Democrats on the question of free- 
dom. In certain localities these alliances promised 
the election of anti-slavery candidates, but how 
could Free-Soilers act with men committed by their 
party platforms to oppose any one willing even to 
discuss slavery ? 

From the beginning Sumner consistently favored 
independent action both in private and in public. 
This view prevailed, and in August the Free- 
Soilers in national convention nominated John P. 
Hale and George W. Julian for president and vice- 
president. Two weeks after Congress adjourned 
the Free-Soilers of Massachusetts nominated an 
independent state ticket. At this convention Sum- 
ner made his first appearance after his speech in 
the Senate, and in a short but very effective ad- 
dress advocated a new party, " a party of freedom," 
encountering the time-dishonored argument, that in 
this country there can be only two parties, so in- 
sistently put forth by the politician to hold his 
wavering followers, saying : — 



FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE 97 

" At the present time in our country there exists 
a deep, controlling, conscientious feeling against 
slavery. You and I, sir, and all of us, confess 
it. . . . If not through the old parties then over 
the old parties this irresistible current shall find 
its way. It cannot be permanently stopped. If 
the old parties will not become its organs they must 
become its victims. The party of freedom will 
certainly prevail." 

Seward did not share his views, but actively sup- 
ported the Whig candidates, and after the election 
said : " No new party will arise, nor will any old 
one fall. The issue will not change. "We shall go on 
much as heretofore, I think, only that the last effort 
to convert the Whig party to slavery has failed." 

Mr. Seward with his varied and great abilities 
lacked prophetic instinct; yet the campaign of 1852 
seemed to justify his opinion. The Free-Soilers, 
weakened by the return of the " Barn-Burners " in 
New York to the Democratic party, cast hardly 
more than half as many votes as they had four years 
before, losing ten thousand votes in Massachusetts. 
The Whigs carried only Vermont, Massachusetts, 
Kentucky, and Tennessee, though in the popular 
vote they were but two hundred thousand behind 
the Democrats. In Massachusetts a certain alliance 
with the Democrats continued, but the Whigs 
secured a small majority in the legislature and 
elected all the members of Congress save two. 
They therefore secured the state offices and elected 
Edward Everett to the national Senate. But in 



98 CHAELES SUMNER 

many districts the vote was close and the victory 
was not overwhelming. 

Sumner took no part in the contest after his 
speech at the convention. Campaign speaking was 
naturally distasteful to him, and not being a prac- 
tical politician he was slow to recognize the claims 
which his political associates made upon their 
leader. His inaction gave rise to many complaints 
from his supporters, and for a while his hold upon 
some of them was weakened. 

At the next session of Congress the question of 
slavery was not discussed, and Sumner preserves in 
his works only two contributions to the debates. 
One of these was a short speech in support of reso- 
lutions offered by Chase against secrecy in proceed- 
ings of the Senate, in which he said : — 

" Executive sessions with closed doors, shrouded 
from the public gaze and public criticism, consti- 
tute an exceptional part of our system, too much 
in harmony with the proceedings of other govern- 
ments less liberal in character. The genius of our 
institutions requires publicity." 

His first Congress established his position and 
demonstrated his courage and ability, and at its 
close he was able to say, " With most of the South- 
ern men my relations have been pleasant." Per- 
haps his opponents were more ready to treat him 
with indulgence because he was one of an insignifi- 
cant minority, while they were in control of the 
government. This good feeling, however, in the 
nature of things could not endure. 



FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE 99 

Though the Whigs elected the legislature of 
Massachusetts in 1852, the Democrats and the Free- 
Soilers carried a proposition to call a constitutional 
convention. The primary object was to change the 
existing basis of representation, under which the 
city of Boston elected forty-four representatives on 
a general ticket, to the great advantage of the 
Whigs who controlled the city ; but the convention 
was called upon to deal with many other proposi- 
tions. It met early in May, and finished its work 
on August 1, 1853. Among its members were 
many of the ablest men in the State, and its dis- 
cussions were interesting. Marshfield, the home of 
Daniel Webster, chose Sumner as its representa- 
tive by a very large majority over Webster's son, a 
result which was hailed with satisfaction as the 
verdict of his townsmen on Webster. Sumner's 
principal contribution to the discussions was a 
speech in favor of dividing the State into equal 
districts according to population, and letting each 
district choose its representative. In this he dif- 
fered from his party associates and his views did 
not prevail, though the district system was adopted 
not many years afterward and is still in force. 
He advocated the abolition of all distinctions of 
race or color in the militia, and as chairman of the 
committee on the bill of rights, he made an in- 
structive speech in regard to the history and utility 
of such declarations. He was not a leader in the 
convention ; though it enlarged his acquaintance 
throughout the State, and corrected the impression 



100 CHAELES SUMNEE 

of many that he was a man of one idea, who was 
not readily accessible. 

The state campaign in the autumn of 1853 
turned on the adoption of the new constitution, 
and Sumner threw himself into it with vigor, 
speaking almost every evening after he began, and 
in all the principal cities. His speech was much 
admired, and his exertions effaced entirely the 
feeling caused by his inaction a year before. The 
campaign ended in a Whig victory and the defeat 
of the constitution by some five thousand votes. 
This result was due to several causes and it ended 
the alliance between Democrats and Free-Soilers, 
which was replaced in a short time by a union of 
anti-slavery men in the party of Freedom. The 
Whigs were offensively triumphant and the Free- 
Soilers were correspondingly depressed. Neither 
dreamed of the political revolution which was im- 
pending. 



CHAPTER VII 
THE REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 

When the Thirty-third Congress met on Decem- 
ber 5, 1853, the situation was discouraging to the 
Free-Soilers. Chase and Sumner stood alone in 
the Senate, for Hale had given place to a Demo- 
crat. The country, by the concurrent action of 
both parties, had decided that slavery should not 
even be discussed. The pro-slavery party, control- 
ling every branch of the government, was able to 
make, to execute, and to interpret laws. It wielded 
the whole patronage of the nation, and its purpose 
to use this power had been declared by the new 
secretaiy of state in the offensive phrase, " To the 
victors belong the spoils." Indeed it was the dark- 
est moment of the struggle, not because the slave 
power was then most aggressive, but because there 
was the least resistance to slavery and the con- 
science of the country seemed dead. The Whig 
party had fallen like Lucifer, " never to rise 
again," but the Free-Soilers had lost rather than 
gained strength by its fall. Yet it is in the his- 
tory of the next twelve years that the believer in 
free government must always find abundant justi- 
fication for his faith, for it was during these that 



102 CHARLES SUMNER 

apathy gave place to the consuming fire in which 
slavery perished. 

The President's message assured the country 
that the prevailing peace would not be disturbed 
during his administration, and everything promised 
a dull session. Nor was it the enemies of slavery 
who renewed the contest. The blow which in the 
end proved fatal to it came from its friends. In- 
toxicated with their victory they thought to win 
even greater triumphs. Slavery had gained peace 
but not territory by the compromise, and its friends 
knew that when it ceased to expand it began to die. 
Convinced that the surrender of the North was 
final, they resolved to assert the equal right of 
slavery in all the territories of the United States 
and to repeal the Missouri Compromise, which had 
consecrated to freedom all the territory acquired 
from France which lay north of latitude 36° 30'. 

On December 14 Mr. Dodge of Iowa introduced 
a bill to organize the territory of Nebraska, which 
was in the usual form, with no reference to slav- 
ery. Nebraska was part of the territory from 
which slavery was forever excluded by the Mis- 
souri Compromise. The bill was referred to the 
committee on territories, and on January 4 was 
reported to the Senate with amendments, which 
copied from the statutes organizing the territories 
of Utah and New Mexico the provision, that any 
States formed from the territory should be admitted 
into the Union, whether their constitutions pro- 
hibited or permitted slavery. The accompanying 



REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 103 

report said: "It is a disputed point whether 
slavery is prohibited in the Nebraska country by 
valid enactment. The decision of this question 
involves the constitutional power of Congress to 
pass laws prescribing and regulating the domestic 
institutions of the various territories of the Union." 
This question the committee did not discuss, pre- 
ferring to follow the policy adopted with New 
Mexico and Utah by the compromise of 1850. 
The report questioned the power, which Congress 
had exercised for years, of regulating the domestic 
institutions of the territories and of prescribing the 
conditions upon which States should be admitted, 
and it set aside the provisions of a statute designed 
to be a permanent compact between North and 
South, and so regarded for a generation. 

As originally printed the bill contained twenty 
sections, but a few days later it was again printed 
with an additional section, said to have been omit- 
ted by the copyist. This declared the intent of the 
bill to be that all questions as to slavery in the ter- 
ritories, and States to be formed therefrom, should 
be left to the decision of the people residing therein ; 
that all cases involving title to slaves and questions 
of personal freedom should be referred to the local 
tribunals, with a right of appeal to the Supreme 
Court of the United States ; and that the fugitive 
slave laws should be executed in the territories as 
in the States. These propositions were said to be 
established by the compromise of 1850. 

Some two weeks later Mr. Dixon of Kentucky 



104 CHARLES SUMNER 

proposed an amendment that the existing pro- 
hibition of slavery " shall not be so construed as to 
apply to the territory contemplated by this act, or 
to any other territory of the United States ; but 
that the citizens of the several States or territories 
shall be at liberty to take and hold their slaves 
within any of the territories of the United States 
or of the States to be formed therefrom." This 
amendment, if adopted, established slavery every- 
where except in the existing free States. 

The next day Sumner offered an amendment 
expressly providing that the act should not be con- 
strued " to abrogate or in any way contravene the 
act of March 6, 1820," known as the Missouri 
Compromise. That is to say, the anti-slavery leader 
sought to maintain the existing law, while his op- 
ponents wished at a blow to give slavery the widest 
possible extension. On January 23, Douglas, from 
the committee on territories, submitted a substi- 
tute bill, which divided the territory into two, Kan- 
sas and Nebraska, and in terms declared that the 
Missouri Compromise " was superseded by the 
principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly 
called the Compromise Measures, and is hereby 
declared inoperative." This measure was approved 
by the President, and Douglas moved its imme- 
diate consideration. It was postponed, however, 
till January 30, when it was made the special order 
from day to day until disposed of. 

The claim of Douglas that the Missouri Com- 
promise was in any way affected by the compromise 



REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 105 

of 1850 was a brazen assumption. In the exercise 
of its power to govern the territories, Congress 
had, in 1820, determined that slavery should be 
prohibited in certain territory of the United States, 
and should be permitted in certain other territory. 
In 1850 it had authorized the organization of ter- 
ritorial governments in Utah and New Mexico, 
without settling the question of slavery while they 
remained territories ; but had provided that, when 
admitted as States, they should be received " with 
or without slavery." Both measures asserted the 
power of Congress to deal with the question, and 
between them was no inconsistency. 

Nothing in the situation of Kansas and Ne- 
braska made it important to organize these terri- 
tories at once. The Indian commissioner in his 
official report of November 9, 1853, made this state- 
ment : " On the 11th of October, the day on which 
I left the frontier, there was no settlement made in 
any part of Nebraska. From all the information I 
could obtain there were but three white men in the 
territory, except such as were there by authority 
of law, and those adopted by marriage or other- 
wise into Indian families." General Houston, who 
was well informed, said that there was not a white 
man in Kansas, and by treaty with the Indians 
large parts of the territory were given up to them, 
from which whites were excluded. It was there- 
fore only a political exigency which led to the intro- 
duction of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. As Douglas 
is said to have confessed subsequently, " his party, 



106 CHARLES SUMNER 

in the election of Pierce, had consumed all its pow- 
der, and therefore, without a deep-reaching agita- 
tion, it would have no more ammunition for its 
artillery." 

The full meaning of the proposed measure was 
not immediately appreciated by the Free-Soilers, 
and in order to arouse public opinion, Chase, Sum- 
ner, Joshua R. Giddings, Edward Wade, Gerrit 
Smith, and Alexander DeWitt, calling themselves 
" the Independent Democrats in Congress," issued 
an address to the country. This document, drawn 
by Chase, was a strong statement of the situation 
and a powerful appeal to the moral sense of the 
people. Douglas felt its force, and doubtless it 
opened his eyes to the character of the contest 
which he had provoked. In opening the debate he 
denounced the signers with great bitterness, calling 
them " abolition confederates," and accusing them 
of misrepresentation and calumny. His ill-temper 
was perhaps increased by the recollection that, not 
five years before, he had said that the Missouri 
Compromise " had become canonized in the hearts 
of the American people as a sacred thing which 
no ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough to 
disturb." An uneasy conscience, as is often the 
case, added venom to his attacks on his opponents. 
In reply to Douglas, Chase defended the appeal, 
and Sumner supported him with a few words, 
saying that the signers had discharged a public 
duty. His principal speech against the bill was 
made on February 15, and discussed the measure 



REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 107 

itself, expressly declining to engage in any personal 
controversy with Douglas. The speech was singu- 
larly dispassionate, a literary and historical treat- 
ment of the question prepared in the closet, and 
not an argument glowing with the heat of debate. 
He made the character of the Missouri Compro- 
mise as a binding compact clearly apparent; he 
insisted that it be maintained, and showed the 
gradual change in public sentiment on the slavery 
question, until, as he said, " the original policy of 
the government is absolutely reversed. Slavery, 
which at the beginning was a sectional institution, 
with no foothold anywhere on the national terri- 
tory, is now exalted as national, and all our broad 
domain is threatened by its blighting shadow." 

He was studious to state his position without 
flinching, yet so as to conciliate rather than offend 
his opponents. This he accomplished, and his 
speech was approved by his supporters as a clear 
and strong statement, while even opponents as bit- 
ter as the Webster Whigs complimented him. 

Sumner took no further part in the debate ex- 
cept twice to deny accusations made against him- 
self, and the bill passed on March 4. In the 
House the Senate bill could not be reached under 
the rules, so an identical bill was introduced and 
passed there. This was sent to the Senate in 
May, and Sumner spoke briefly against it just 
before its passage. He took the opportunity to 
present remonstrances from various bodies of citi- 
zens, including some from clergymen of all denomi- 



108 CHARLES SUMNER 

nations. A protest from three thousand New Eng- 
land ministers had been presented by Mr. Everett 
earlier in the debate, and in this, as in some of 
those presented by Sumner, the signers protested 
" in the name of Almighty God and in his pre- 
sence." This language was denounced as blas- 
phemous by Douglas and his supporters, and in 
answer to their attacks Sumner spoke with dignity 
and power. He paid a just tribute to the clergy 
of New England. Then keenly appreciating the 
situation and accurately forecasting the future he 
continued : — 

" Ah, sir, senators vainly expect peace. Not in 
this way can peace come. In passing such a bill 
as is now threatened, you scatter from this dark 
midnight hour no seeds of harmony and good will, 
but broadcast through the land dragon's teeth, 
which haply may not spring up in a direful crop 
of armed men, yet I am assured, sir, will fructify 
in civil strife and feud. . . . 

" Sir, the bill you are about to pass is at once 
the worst and best on which Congress has ever 
acted. Yes, sir, worst and best at the same time. 

" It is the worst bill inasmuch as it is a present 
victory of slavery. In a Christian land, and in an 
age of civilization, a time-honored statute of free- 
dom is stricken down, opening the way to all the 
countless woes and wrongs of human bondage. . . . 

" Sir, it is the best bill on which Congress ever 
acted, for it annuls all past compromises with slav- 
ery and makes any future compromises imjwssible. 



REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 109 

Thus it puts Freedom and Slavery face to face, 
and bids them grapple. Who can doubt the re- 
sult ? It opens wide the door of the future, when 
at last there will really be a North and the slave 
power will be broken. . . . Everywhere within the 
sphere of Congress the great Northern Hammer 
will descend to smite the wrong, and the irresisti- 
ble cry will break forth, ' No more Slave States ! ' " 

This lofty defiance, this confident prophecy, so 
free from any passion or bitterness, in the very 
moment of slavery's greatest triumph, exactly re- 
presented the rising feeling of the North, and the 
speech was cordially applauded. 

Up to this time nothing had occurred to disturb 
his personal relations with his associates, but the 
"dragon's teeth" sprang up sooner than he thought. 
On the evening of May 24 Anthony Burns was 
seized as a fugitive slave in Boston, and on the 
evening of the 26th a meeting of abolitionists was 
held in Faneuil Hall. Immediately after this a body 
of citizens, among whom were some who had been 
prominent at the meeting, attacked the court-house 
where Burns was detained, and in the conflict one 
of the guards was killed. This created intense feel- 
ing in Washington, where the news was received 
while the memory of Sumner's speech was fresh in 
men's minds. In fact the speech did not reach Bos- 
ton till the morning after the riot, but it was felt 
that the trouble had been inspired by the abolition- 
ists, and it was easy to claim that Sumner's speech 
was responsible for it, especially as he came from 



110 CHARLES SUMNER 

the city where it had occurred. The organs of 
the Administration attacked him fiercely, and some 
of the articles suggested personal violence. 

Sumner was warned to be on his guard, but he 
continued to walk from his rooms to the Capitol 
regardless of the threatened danger. At a restau- 
rant where he dined he was menaced, though no 
actual assault was attempted. But the feeling of 
hostility to him, the idea of holding him personally 
responsible for the acts of abolitionists and in- 
flicting upon him physical punishment, had been 
planted in the minds of men who were approach- 
ing the time when 

" The war of tongue and pen 
Learns with what deadly purpose it was fraught." 

In Boston the majesty of the law was vindicated, 
and through crowded streets, but in deep silence 
and between files of soldiers, Anthony Burns was 
carried back to slavery. For many a spectator 
the sight gave a new meaning to the word " slav- 
ery," and the incident made many determined abo- 
litionists. Massachusetts and especially Boston 
were stirred to their depths. 

Supporters and opponents of the compromise 
united in a petition for the repeal of the Fugitive 
Slave Law, which, bearing many influential names 
and twenty-nine hundred signatures, was pre- 
sented in the Senate by Julius Rockwell, who 
had succeeded Everett. On June 26 this petition 
was referred to the committee on the judiciary 
after some debate, in the course of which Sumner 



REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 111 

spoke in answer to Jones of Tennessee, who had 
threatened disunion if the law should be repealed, 
and had attacked Massachusetts and her citizens 
with some bitterness. 

Sumner made a spirited reply in which he 
alluded to her revolutionary history, and among 
other things said : " The senator says that Bos- 
ton is filled with traitors. That charge is not 
new. Boston of old was the home of Hancock and 
Adams. Her traitors now are those who are truly 
animated by the spirit of the American Revolution. 
In condemning them, in condemning Massachu- 
setts, in condemning these remonstrants, you simply 
give proper conclusion to the utterance on this floor 
that the Declaration of Independence is 'a self- 
evident lie.' " 

Mr. Butler of South Carolina at once replied, 
claiming that the Revolution was carried through 
by slaveholding States, and characterizing Sum- 
ner's speech as "a species of rhetoric intended 
to feed the fires of fanaticism in his own State," 
but " vapid " and unworthy of a scholar. Touch- 
ing upon the constitutional duty of the States to 
return fugitive slaves, he first asked Sumner's col- 
league, Rockwell, whether Massachusetts "would 
send fugitives back to us after trial by jury 
or any other mode," and receiving no reply he 
turned to Sumner and said, " Will this honor- 
able senator tell me that he will do it ? " Sumner 
answered, " Is thy servant a dog, that he should do 
this thing ? " This reply excited Butler, and the 



112 CHARLES SUMNER 

debate became bitterly personal. He attempted 
to state Sumner's position somewhat incoherently, 
when Sumner, interrupting, said : " The senator 
asked me if I would help to reduce a fellow man 
to bondage. I answered him." To which Butler 
replied: "Then you would not obey the Consti- 
tution. Sir, standing here before this tribunal, 
where you swore to support it, you rise and tell 
me that you regard it the office of a dog to en- 
force it. You stand in my presence as a coequal 
senator, and tell me that it is a dog's office to exe- 
cute the Constitution of the United States." 

Mason of Virginia followed in an insolent vein 
beginning : " I say, sir, the dignity of the American 
Senate has been rudely, wantonly, grossly assailed 
by a senator from Massachusetts, — and not only 
the dignity of the Senate, but of the whole people, 
trifled with in the presence of the American Senate, 
either ignorantly or corruptly, I do not know which, 
nor do I care." Pettit of Indiana compared Sum- 
ner and Webster as a jackal and a lion, or a buzzard 
and an eagle. On a later clay Clay of Alabama 
described Sumner as " a sneaking, sinuous, snake- 
like poltroon," and used other like epithets, con- 
cluding : " If we cannot restrain or prevent this 
eternal warfare upon the feelings and rights of 
Southern gentlemen, we may rob the serpent of his 
fangs, we can paralyze his influence, by placing him 
in that nadir of social degradation which he merits." 

Sumner could afford to despise the coarse epithets 
of such opponents as Clay and Pettit, but their at- 



REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 113 

tacks followed the speeches of more important men 
like Mason, whose insolence, reflected as it doubt- 
less was in the behavior of many senators, was ex- 
tremely irritating. In fact, the Southern leaders 
had so long adopted a domineering manner in de- 
bate, and had assumed for themselves such social 
superiority, that men were anxious to have them met 
with their own weapons. Public feeling in the 
North demanded a champion able to assert at least 
the equality of Northern men with their Southern 
fellow citizens, and Sumner perhaps felt that his 
own position in the Senate and in the country would 
be weakened if he seemed unable or unwilling to 
face his antagonists. Whatever were the control- 
ling considerations, he departed in this instance 
from his previous course, and met personality with 
personality. He replied to the claims of Mason 
and Butler by facts from the history of their States. 

Thus Butler had said : " Yes, sir, the independ- 
ence of America, to maintain republican liberty, 
was won by the arms and treasure, by the patriot- 
ism and good faith, of slaveholding communities." 

To this Sumner's reply was crushing. He showed 
by indisputable evidence that Massachusetts alone 
not only furnished to the army of the Revolution 
thirteen times as many men as South Carolina, but 
more than all the Southern States together, though 
the populations of the Northern and Southern States 
were then substantially equal. Not stopping here 
he showed by the memoirs of General Moultrie 
and by other South Carolina authorities, that when 



114 CHARLES SUMNER 

the British were threatening Charleston, the gover- 
nor and council proposed that South Carolina 
should remain neutral during the war, and " the 
question whether the State shall belong to Great 
Britain, or remain one of the United States, be de- 
termined by the treaty of peace between those two 
powers." He concluded by proving from Southern 
sources that the failure of the South to do its share 
in the Revolution was caused by slavery, quoting 
from the Secret Journals of the Continental Con- 
gress, — 

" That the State of South Carolina ... is un- 
able to make any effectual efforts with militia by 
reason of the great population of citizens necessary 
to remain at home to prevent insurrection among 
the negroes, and to prevent the desertion of them 
to the enemy." 

He pointed out that Butler had challenged the 
comparison, and proceeded : — 

" For myself, sir, I understand the sensibilities 
of senators from ' slaveholding communities ' and 
would not wound them by a superfluous word. 
Of slavery I speak strongly, as I must, but thus 
far, even at the expense of my argument, I have 
avoided the contrasts founded on detail of figures 
and facts, which are so obvious between the free 
States and ' slaveholding communities.' . . . God 
forbid that I should do injustice to South 
Carolina. I know well the gallantry of many 
of her sons. ... I have little desire to expose 
her sores; I would not lay bare even her na- 



REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 115 

kedness. But the senator in his vaunt for ' slave- 
holding communities ' has made a claim for slavery 
so derogatory to freedom, and so inconsistent with 
history, that I cannot allow it to pass unan- 
swered. ... I speak here for a commonwealth of 
just renown, but I speak also for a cause which 
is more than any commonwealth, even that which I 
represent ; and I cannot allow the senator to dis- 
credit either. Not by slavery, but in spite of slav- 
ery, was independence achieved. Not because, but 
notwithstanding there were ' slaveholding com- 
munities,' did triumph descend upon our arms." 
Then addressing himself to Mr. Mason : — 
" With imperious look and in the style of Sir 
Forcible Feeble, that senator undertakes to call in 
question my statement that the Fugitive Slave Act 
denies the writ of habeas corpus ; and in doing this 
he assumes a superiority for himself which, permit 
me to tell him in his presence, nothing in him can 
warrant. Sir, I claim little for myself ; but I 
shrink in no respect from comparison with that 
senator, veteran though he be. Sitting near him, 
as has been my fortune since I had the honor of 
a seat in this chamber, I have come to know 
something of his conversation, something of his 
manners, something of his attainments, something 
of his abilities, something of his character, — ay, 
sir, and something of his associations ; and while 
I would not disparage him in any of these re- 
spects, I feel that I do not exalt myself unduly, 
that I do not claim too much for the position which 



116 CHARLES SUMNER 

I hold or the name which I have established, when 
I openly declare that as senator from Massachu- 
setts and as man I place myself at every point in 
unhesitating comparison with that honorable as- 
sailant. And to his peremptory assertion that the 
Fugitive Slave Act does not deny the habeas cor- 
pus, I oppose my assertion, peremptory as his own, 
that it does, and there I leave that issue." 

These extended quotations have been made to 
show the character and purpose of a speech 
which was an important event in Sumner's life. It 
increased the personal hostility to him felt by the 
pro-slavery party, and it made him more distinctly 
the leader of the anti-slavery forces in Congress. 
The feeling in the Senate was so strong that a pro- 
position to expel him was seriously considered. On 
the other hand, the applause from the North was 
general. The feeling of the time is illustrated not 
so much by the enthusiastic plaudits of the active 
abolitionists as by the verdict of conservative men, 
from many of whom he received letters of warm 
approval. 

Sumner had won that cordial and enduring 
respect which Americans always feel for a man 
" that ain't a-feared." He had shown himself not 
only a polished scholar and idealist, but a fearless 
fighter also ; he had met and withstood the cham- 
pions of the Senate on their own grounds. It was 
a triumph for his cause, for his State, and for him- 
self, and it drew from Whittier the lines " To C. 
S.," which describe him as 



REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 117 

"One 
Who, momently by Error's host assailed, 
Stands strong as Truth, in greaves of granite mailed ; 
And, tranquil-fronted, listening over all 
The tumult, hears the angels say, Well done ! " 

During the remainder of the session nothing 
very important occurred. There were occasional 
references to his view of his constitutional obliga- 
tions, but he was treated as a rule with entire re- 
spect and courtesy by his opponents. His reply 
to Mason and Butler had discouraged further 
attacks, and cleared the atmosphere of the Senate. 

The answer of the North to the repeal of the 
Missouri Compromise was the Republican party. 
Anti-slavery men were to be found in every polit- 
ical organization, but upon the question of slavery 
none of these organizations could be trusted. No 
party with a Southern wing would alienate Southern 
votes. When, therefore, the Kansas-Nebraska bill 
brought the country face to face with the danger 
that slavery would be extended over all the terri- 
tories of the United States and thus control the 
government, resistance to this extension became 
the paramount duty of the hour, and men who 
differed on other questions united for the common 
defense. All over the North a new party was 
demanded. The party existed : it only needed 
to be recognized by its own members. In Wash- 
ington some thirty members of the House met on 
the morning after the passage of the bill, and 
concluded that a new party was necessary. The 



118 CHARLES SUMNER 

name " Republican," which, indeed, had been sug- 
gested previously at a small meeting in Wisconsin, 
was discussed and agreed upon. In Massachusetts 
the Free-Soilers held a convention, and the sen- 
timent of the meeting was expressed by Henry 
Wilson : " We go with none who do not wear 
our principles upon their foreheads, and have them 
engraved on their hearts." 

Conferences followed, and after a preliminary 
meeting, at which the name " Republican " was 
adopted, a state convention of delegates was held 
at Worcester on September 7, and at this Sumner 
made his first public appearance after his return 
from Washington. He addressed himself to the 
duty of Massachusetts, and made a powerful argu- 
ment for a new party. The speech did not smell 
of the lamp like some of his earlier ones ; he did 
not stop to consider phrases ; he was still hot from 
the battle. Of the Burns case he said : " In those 
streets where he had walked as freeman Anthony 
Burns was seized as slave, under the base pretext 
that he was a criminal, — imprisoned in the court- 
house, which was turned for the time into fortress 
and barracoon, — guarded by heartless hirelings, 
whose chief idea of liberty was license to wrong, 
— escorted by intrusive soldiers of the United 
States, — watched by a prostituted militia, — and 
finally given up to a slave hunter by the decree of 
a petty magistrate, who did not hesitate to take 
upon his soul the awful responsibility of dooming 
a fellow man, in whom he could find no fault, to 



REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 119 

a fate worse than death. ... In doing this deed 
of woe and shame, the liberties of our citizens, 
white as well as black, were put in jeopardy, the 
mayor of Boston was converted to a tool, the gov- 
ernor of the commonwealth to a cipher, the laws, 
the precious sentiments of religion, the pride and 
glory of Massachusetts, were trampled in the dust, 
and 'you and I and all of us fell down' while 
the Slave Power flourished over us." 

He insisted that to every scheme of slavery Mas- 
sachusetts must send forth an " everlasting No ; " 
that she must by proper laws secure for her people 
the rights of trial by jury and habeas corpus; 
that she must choose to office " men who, at Wash- 
ington, will not shrink from conflict with slavery, 
and also other men who at home in Massachusetts 
will not shrink from the same conflict when the 
slave hunter appears," and that this could only be 
done by a new party. 

He urged that all existing laws for the protec- 
tion of freedom must be enforced, and that new 
laws must be enacted where the old laws were in- 
adequate, saying : " Massachusetts will do well in 
following Vermont, which by special law places the 
fugitive slave under the safeguard of trial by jury 
and the writ of habeas corpus. ... A simple 
prohibition, declaring that no person holding the 
commission of Massachusetts as justice of the peace 
or other magistrate shall assume to act as a slave- 
hunting commissioner or as counsel of any slave 
hunter, under some proper penalty, would go far to 



120 CHARLES SUMNER 

render the existing slave act inoperative. There 
are not many so fond of this base trade as to con- 
tinue it when the commonwealth sets upon it a 
legislative brand." 

He justified this counsel, which would have 
placed Massachusetts in direct conflict with the 
United States, by the familiar argument that every 
man was bound only to support the Constitution 
as he understood it. He pointed out that the 
judgment of the Supreme Court was final in each 
case, but as a precedent was not binding on the 
court itself and therefore could not bind coordinate 
branches of the government. In the same vein he 
reminded his hearers that all human tribunals are 
liable to err, recited historical instances of judi- 
cial error, and summed up his advice as follows : 
" No man who is not lost to self-respect, and ready 
to abandon that manhood which is shown in the 
Heaven-directed countenance, will voluntarily aid 
in enforcing a judgment which in conscience he 
believes wrong. He will not hesitate 'to obey 
God rather than man ' and calmly abide the peril 
he provokes." 

This was strong doctrine for an eminent lawyer 
/ and a senator of the United States to preach in a 
law-abiding community. It was the most extreme 
speech that Sumner had made. It brushed aside 
all respect for law, and appealed directly to the 
consciences of men, to that law which is above 
magistrates. It advocated a course of conduct 
which, if adopted in the ordinary affairs of life, 



REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 121 

would make our " government of laws " impossible. 
He was preaching revolution. When the decisions 
of courts cannot be reconciled with the great prin- 
ciples of right and wrong ; when they find no sup- 
port in the consciences of men, their authority is 
gone, and a refusal to obey them may be justified 
by the same arguments that make resistance to 
other tyrants " obedience to God." In each case 
the question of acquiescence or resistance is a 
question which each man in the last resort must 
decide for himself according to his conscience, sub- 
mitting to the penalties with fortitude if he fails to 
make his resistance good. 

The judgment of a majority in many North- 
ern States sustained Sumner's opinion that the 
time for resistance had come. Chase and Sew- 
ard applauded his speech, and the legislature of 
Massachusetts at the next session followed his 
advice. He was perhaps the first of the national 
leaders to advocate the laws known as " personal 
liberty bills " and the similar statutes, by which 
Northern States undertook in effect to nullify 
the Fugitive Slave Law. His fundamental pro- 
position was, that the provision of the Constitu- 
tion touching the rendition of " persons held to 
service or labor " did not confer any power on the 
national government " to establish a uniform rule 
for the rendition of fugitives," but was "merely 
a compact between the States with a prohibition 
on the States, conferring no power on the nation" 
like the provision for the extradition of fugitives 



122 CHARLES SUMNER 

from justice. From this he drew the conclusion 
that, " as a compact, its execution depends abso- 
lutely upon the States without any intervention of 
the nation. Each State in the exercise of its own 
judgment will determine for itself the precise ex- 
tent of obligation assumed." When he first as- 
serted this position in the Senate he contented 
himself with the inference that Congress had no 
power to pass the Fugitive Slave Law, but he 
suggested no action by the States. Now, how- 
ever, he went further, and called upon the States 
to act so as to secure for their citizens claimed as 
fugitive slaves the right of trial by jury and the 
privilege of habeas corpus, and to render the exe- 
cution of the Fugitive Slave Law difficult if not 
impossible. Upon the legal proposition, that the 
States were at liberty to construe the Constitution 
and to pass any laws which their construction of 
that instrument permitted, rested the whole body 
of statutes passed by the free States for this pur- 
pose, and Sumner's argument was doubtless largely 
influential in procuring their enactment. 

The Republican party, however, was not imme- 
diately triumphant. Strong as was the feeling 
excited by the Kansas-Nebraska bill and the Fu- 
gitive Slave Law, it was not strong enough to 
dissolve party ties in Massachusetts. The con- 
vention which Sumner addressed was composed 
mostly of Free-Soilers. The Whig leaders, elated 
by their recent victory, were unwilling to unite 
with men whom they had just been opposing, 



REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 123 

especially when to do so was to confess that their 
opponents had been right. The aspect of the 
slavery question had not changed enough to make 
these men forget so recent a contest. An unex- 
pected political movement accomplished that for 
which Sumner and his associates were laboring. 
A secret order, organized in New York to resist 
the influence of foreign-born voters, especially such 
as were Catholics, spread rapidly over the country, 
and many anti-slavery men joined it, notably Henry 
Wilson of Massachusetts. He was well acquainted 
with the secrets of the new party, which named itself 
"American," but was popularly called "Know- 
Nothing," and we may safely rely upon his state- 
ment that " hundreds of thousands, who cared less 
for its avowed principles than for the higher claims 
of justice and humanity, and had little faith in its 
permanency, were willing to use its machinery to 
disrupt the Whig and Democratic parties, in the 
confident hope that out of the disorganized masses 
there would come a great political party, antag- 
onistic to the dominating influences of the slave 
power." J 

What the party leaders had attempted to prevent 
was accomplished. While the political armies were 
seemingly intact, the privates were secretly in re- 
volt and deserted on the battlefield. When the 
election took place the Know-Nothings chose the en- 
tire state ticket, — all the members of Congress, all 
the state senators, and nearly all the representa- 

1 Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, ii. 419, 420. 



124 CHARLES SUMNER 

tives, — and so dominant was the anti-slavery 
sentiment in the legislature that Wilson was sent to 
the Senate as Sumner's colleague. 

The rise of the new organization left Sumner 
without a party, and after his speech at Worcester 
he took no part in the campaign. He was abso- 
lutely opposed to the attitude of the " Know-No- 
things " towards foreign voters, and he never fa- 
vored secrecy in political action. With his hatred 
of intolerance or oppression and his essentially 
frank nature, no other position was possible for 
him. So far, however, as the result was due to the 
anti-slavery feeling, Sumner's speeches in the Sen- 
ate and elsewhere had helped to secure it. As a 
movement against religious freedom and the equal- 
ity of men, the new party failed ignominiously and 
deservedly. As a movement for freedom, it suc- 
ceeded, and by shattering the Whig organization 
opened the way for the Republican party, which, 
abandoning the secrecy and the intolerance of the 
" Know-Nothings," became a true party of freedom. 

It is interesting to observe that it was the Whig 
and not the Democratic party which delayed the 
formation of the Republican party. Until the 
Whig party was destroyed, the new organization 
was feeble. The general respectability of the 
Whigs, and the party spirit which made them un- 
willing to recognize the weakness of their own posi- 
tion, while they were keenly alive to the faults of 
Democrats and Free-Soilers, kept their party to- 
gether long after it had ceased to be a useful 



REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 125 

political tool. Of the two great parties, it was 
essentially the anti-slavery party, but political expe- 
diency and the constant desire of its leaders to win 
the next election kept it from taking strong ground 
on the issue of the day. By offering a shelter to 
the timid, by appearing to be the better of the two 
powerful parties while it did not work effectively 
for righteousness, it divided the anti-slavery forces, 
created a bitter difference between men who 
thought alike, and was therefore a worse enemy of 
freedom than the Democratic party, as a false 
friend is more dangerous than an open foe. While 
the Whig party endured, there was no harmonious 
and strong opposition to the slave power. When 
it was destroyed, the knell of slavery was sounded. 
Such conditions are not uncommon in the history 
of parties ; and when they prevail the real ob- 
stacles to progress are often those who think them- 
selves its friends, but whose action is paralyzed by 
cowardice or selfishness, and who neither work 
heartily themselves nor give place to others who 
will do so. The political field must be cleared of 
such effete organizations, which live on their past 
and prize victory for its spoils, whenever any great 
political object is to be attained or any great reform 
accomplished. 

The second session of the Thirty-third Congress 
met in December, 1854, and began peacefully. 
Sumner offered resolutions on various subjects of 
general interest, such as the amendment of the law 
relating to the fisheries, and mediation in the Cri- 



126 CHARLES SUMNER 

mean war. He introduced a bill securing to sea- 
men their wages in case of wreck, which he sup- 
ported by a speech ; and he wrote against capital 
punishment to a committee of the Massachusetts 
legislature. But such calm could not continue. 
The legislation in the Northern States against 
the Fugitive Slave Law provoked retaliation, and 
in February, 1855, the committee on the judi- 
ciary reported a bill " to protect officers and other 
persons acting under the authority of the United 
States ; " which provided that any one tried in a 
state court for an act done under any law of the 
United States might have the suit removed to the 
federal court. It was recognized at once as an at- 
tempt to defeat the recent legislation of the North- 
ern States and to aid in enforcing the Fugitive 
Slave Law, and when it was taken up an active 
debate ensued, in which Mr. Benjamin said : 
" The whole course of Northern legislation for the 
past few months has been a course of direct war 
with the South ; and the bill now before the Sen- 
ate is a measure, not of aggression, but of defense." 
Sumner closed the debate by a speech in which he 
repeated some of his arguments against the consti- 
tutionality of the Fugitive Slave Law. In answer 
to the question of Butler, whether, if there were 
no federal laws on the subject, he would recommend 
Massachusetts to pass any law for the rendition of 
fugitive slaves, he replied, " Never," thus for him- 
self at least repudiating any obligation to regard 
this provision of the Constitution. In closing he 



REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 127 

offered an amendment repealing the Fugitive Slave 
Law, for which nine senators, including Chase and 
Seward, voted, but which was defeated by the ad- 
verse votes of thirty. The bill passed the Sen- 
ate, but was not taken up in the House, and 
Sumner's speech was his only conspicuous contri- 
bution to the anti-slavery cause during the session. 
Shortly after his return home, he delivered a 
carefully prepared address on the needs of the 
hour, entitled " The Anti-Slavery Enterprise, its 
Necessity, Practicability, and Dignity, with Glances 
at the Special Duties of the North." It was the 
closing lecture in an anti-slavery course at Boston, 
and was afterwards repeated elsewhere, and finally 
in the city of New York itself, where it was re- 
ceived, said the " Tribune," with enthusiasm " by 
the largest audience yet gathered in New York to 
hear a lecture." It was at once repeated in Brook- 
lyn, and again in Niblo's Theatre in New York. 
When we recall the persecution to which the early 
anti-slavery men were exposed in that city, and 
the demonstrations which attended their meetings, 
this reception of Sumner indicated a wonderful 
change in public opinion. He placed the argu- 
ment against slavery on the highest plane, and 
said of the anti-slavery movement : " With the 
sympathies of all Christendom as allies, already 
it encompasses the slave masters by a moral block- 
ade, invisible to the eye, but more potent than 
navies, from which there can be no escape except 
in final capitulation." In this sentence he touched 



128 CHARLES SUMNER 

the essential weakness of slavery. Its friends felt 
keenly the " moral blockade," and knew that slavery 
must extend or die. 

Towards the end of May, 1855, Sumner made his 
first journey to the West, and while in Ohio he 
visited Chase. In all he "traversed eleven free 
States and three slave States." During this 
journey, in a letter of June 18, he stated the 
political situation : " The country is approaching 
a crisis on the slavery question, when freedom will 
triumph in the national government or the Union 
will be dissolved. At moments latterly I have 
thought that the North was at last ready for a 
rising, and that it would be united in the support 
of a truly Northern man for president. Perhaps 
the wish is father of this thought. It is evident 
that the Know-Nothings cannot construct a national 
platform on which they can stand at the North aud 
South ; their failure will make way for a Northern 
combination." 

Again, as often, the idealist saw with far clearer 
vision than did the practical politician. The Know- 
Nothing National Council, which met on June 5 
at Philadelphia, divided hopelessly on slavery and 
the organization was shattered, though the Know- 
Nothings still retained sufficient coherence to delay 
the advent of the Republican party for a year. 
In Massachusetts a vigorous attempt was made to 
draw the anti-slavery Whigs and Know-Nothings 
into union with the Republicans for the autumn 
campaign of 1855. Mr. Winthrop and other 



REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 129 

Whigs were urged to take the lead in the new 
party. Mr. Winthrop declined, but Julius Rock- 
well, who had been Sumner's colleague in the 
Senate, became the Republican candidate for gov- 
ernor, and the ranks of the party were recruited 
from both organizations, though each nominated 
its own candidates. Nevertheless, the Know-No- 
things carried the State by a large plurality. 

Sumner took an active part in the campaign. 
He put to the voters the direct question, " Are 
you for freedom, or are you for slavery ? " arguing 
that neither the Democratic nor the Whig party 
represented the cause of freedom, and that the 
exigency required a new party. Though the Know- 
Nothings controlled the State and professed anti- 
slavery opinions, he took decided ground in a 
careful speech, alike against their distinguishing 
principle and their methods, saying: "The special 
aims which this party proposes are in harmony 
with the darkness in which it begins." He de- 
nounced religious intolerance, unwilling that " the 
children of the Pilgrims of a former generation " 
should " turn from the Pilgrims of the present," 
and concluded : " A party which, beginning in 
secrecy, interferes with religious belief, and founds 
a discrimination on the accident of birth, is not 
the party for us." 

Sumner was splendidly consistent in rejecting 
the assistance of those who, while opposing slav- 
ery, were also opposing freedom of thought and 
speech. He felt the need of every ally in his great 



130 CHARLES SUMNER 

contest, yet he did not hesitate to uphold the princi- 
ples upon which our government rests, even against 
anti-slavery men. His attacks upon their party led 
some of the Know-Nothings to oppose his reelec- 
tion, but they were not successful. 



CHAPTER VIII 

THE BROOKS ASSAULT 

The first session of the Thirty-fourth Congress 
began December 3, 1855. Only eighteen months 
earlier Sumner had warned his colleagues that 
they were scattering " broadcast through the land 
dragon's teeth, which . . . will fructify in civil 
strife and feud." His prophecy was already 
realized. 

The Missouri Compromise had been repealed in 
order to make new slave States ; but to cloak this 
purpose the act declared that it was intended 
"not to legislate slavery into any territory or 
State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave 
the people thereof perfectly free to form and reg- 
ulate their domestic institutions in their own 
way." The law transferred the struggle from the 
halls of Congress to the plains of Kansas, and 
made them the battlefield on which the contest 
was to be won or lost. Nothing could be done 
unless the Kansans themselves decided, or ap- 
peared to decide, in favor of slavery, and therefore, 
to insure slave States in the new territory, the first 
requisite was pro-slavery population. 

The friends of the Kansas-Nebraska Act had 



132 CHARLES SUMNER 

expected such an immigration from Missouri as 
would give Kansas the necessary voters. They did 
not realize the deep feeling in the North, which 
from its larger population could easily send more 
emigrants. Emigration societies were at once 
formed in Massachusetts and other Northern 
States, whose purposes and methods were entirely 
leo-al ; but the South saw in them evidence of a 
purpose which, backed by adequate resources, 
meant the inevitable defeat of any attempt to win 
Kansas for slavery by peaceful settlement. There- 
upon associations were formed in Missouri and 
other slave States for the purpose, avowed with 
brutal frankness, of expelling immigrants who came 
to Kansas through the efforts of these societies. 

From asserting their own right to carry their 
slaves into the territories the slaveholders had 
come to deny the right of any others to settle there ; 
after insisting that the people of each territory 
must decide for themselves between freedom and 
slavery, they now refused to allow their opponents 
any voice in the matter. They determined in 
short to win Kansas for slavery by force, and they 
acted promptly. Andrew H. Reeder, a pro-slavery 
Democrat from Pennsylvania, was made the first 
governor of Kansas, and entered upon the dis- 
charge of his duties in October, 1854. Upon No- 
vember 29, the day named for electing a delegate 
to Congress, bodies of armed Missourians entered 
the territory and voted openly in such numbers 
that more than half the votes cast were illegal. 



THE BROOKS ASSAULT 133 

On March 30, 1855, the elections for the territo- 
rial legislature took place, and again several thou- 
sand armed Missourians invaded Kansas, drove the 
settlers from the polls, and voted in their places. 
To such open outrages even the Democratic gov- 
ernor could not be blind. He admitted the facts, 
but lacked courage to set aside the results, and 
issued certificates of election to most of the per- 
sons thus fraudulently chosen. The others were 
elected later by the legislature itself. Reeder's re- 
cognitiou of the election gave the President an 
excuse for not interfering, and thus the legislative 
power in Kansas became vested in representatives 
chosen by the invaders and not by the inhabitants. 

This legislature met on July 2, 1855, and en- 
acted the laws of Missouri bodily, together with 
such extreme measures in favor of slavery as to 
make Senator Clayton say that, under such laws, 
even John C. Calhoun would not be safe from the 
house of correction. 

It was not in human nature to submit when a 
legislature so chosen passed such statutes ; and 
the real inhabitants bestirred themselves in ear- 
nest. A mass meeting held at Lawrence called 
upon all citizens, whatever their political views, to 
choose delegates to a convention which should meet 
at Topeka on September 19, and deal with the 
whole situation. As a result delegates were chosen 
to a constitutional convention which met at To- 
peka on October 23, framed a constitution prohib- 
iting slavery, but also forbidding the settlement of 



131 CHARLES SUMNER 

free colored persons, and ordered that this, after- 
wards called the "Topeka constitution," should 
be submitted to the people for ratification on De- 
cember 15. A petition was presented to Congress 
for the admission of Kansas as a State with this 
constitution; so when Congress met it was con- 
fronted with the question whether it should recog- 
nize as the legislature of Kansas the body chosen 
by the Missouri ruffians, or should treat the To- 
peka convention as the real representatives of the 
people, or should direct the people of Kansas to 
begin afresh. 

Before Congress could act, the situation was ag- 
gravated by something closely approaching civil 
war. The rescue of a prisoner from a pro-slavery 
sheriff led Governor Shannon, who had succeeded 
Reeder, to call for troops, and a force of Missou- 
rians from the border counties responded, assuming 
to be Kansas militia. These invaders encamped near 
Lawrence, and open battles were imminent when 
the governor, terrified at the prospect, made a 
treaty with the citizens of Lawrence and ordered 
the troops under his command to withdraw. One 
man was shot in these proceedings, and the escape 
from considerable bloodshed was very narrow. Im- 
mediately after this incident the Topeka consti- 
tution was ratified, the pro-slavery men not voting. 
On the same day, Atchison, whose term as senator 
from Missouri had just expired, and who was a 
leader of the pro-slavery forces, issued an appeal 
to the South, urging the sending of men and 



THE BROOKS ASSAULT 135 

money to Kansas. "Twelve months," he said, 
"will not elapse before war — civil war of the 
fiercest kind — will be upon us. We are arming 
and preparing for it." 

On January 15 the state elections were held 
under the Topeka constitution and were attended 
by much disorder and some bloodshed. This 
caused great excitement, and another invasion from 
Missouri was threatened, whereupon the leaders 
of the free state men telegraphed to the Presi- 
dent for protection. On January 24 the President 
sent to Congress a special message on Kansas, 
in which he said that the Emigrant Aid Societies 
had attempted by colonization to prevent the free 
determination of the question whether Kansas 
should be free or slave, and had thus given excuse 
for the excitement in Missouri ; that though the 
conduct of the Missourians had been " illegal and 
reprehensible," yet Governor Reeder's certificates 
of election were binding, and this legal recogni- 
tion of the territorial legislature left him power- 
less to interfere ; that he would exert the whole 
force at his command to suppress any resistance to 
the federal or territorial laws, and that he would 
protect the citizens of Kansas against further vio- 
lence from Missourians, but only in case the terri- 
torial authorities should request his interposition. 
The result was that, as the Missourians had by 
fraud and violence created a legislature and passed 
atrocious laws, obedience to these would be en- 
forced by the whole power of the government ; but 



136 CHARLES SUMNER 

the President would not interfere to protect citi- 
zens against further outrage by the Missourians 
and their allies unless the offenders themselves 
requested him to do so. 

In the Senate various resolutions calling upon 
the President for information were passed, to which 
he responded on February 18 by a message with 
documents. In the sharp debate which ensued 
Sumner took no part, reserving himself for the later 
discussion which was inevitable ; but he watched the 
progress of the struggle in Kansas and in Wash- 
ington with the keenest interest. His letters show 
not only his own feeling, but the general bitterness 
which prevailed. Thus on December 14, 1855, 
he wrote to Theodore Parker: "All things here 
indicate bad feelings. I have never seen so little 
intercourse and commingling among the senators 
of opposite opinions. Seward, Wilson, and myself 
are the special marks of disfavor. God willing, 
something more shall be done to deserve this dis- 
tinction." 

On March 12 two reports from the committee 
on territories were made to the Senate, the major- 
ity report read by Douglas, the minority report by 
Collamer of Vermont. The majority reported a 
bill for organizing a state government in Kansas 
when the territory should have a certain popula- 
tion, but provided that the steps to be taken for 
the purpose should be prescribed by the territorial 
legislature, thus recognizing as legal that fraudu- 
lent body. Douglas in his report adopted the 



THE BROOKS ASSAULT 137 

argument of the President's message, laying the 
blame on the Emigrant Aid Societies, and Sum- 
ner, in a five-minute speech, repelled the attack. 
Seward moved to substitute a bill which admitted 
Kansas under the Topeka constitution. Upon 
these measures debate began on March 20, and 
continued with interruptions for some months. 
Douglas indulged constantly in bitter personality, 
calling his colleague Trumbull a "traitor," and 
suggesting that the " black Republicans " favored 
amalgamation of the white and colored races. He 
charged Sumner with having obtained from him a 
delay of two days in the debate on the Nebraska 
bill, in order to publish " a libel " on him. Sumner 
controverted his statement, and there was a brief 
colloquy in which Douglas was very offensive. This 
was Sumner's only participation in the debate until 
May 19, when he made his great speech, which 
is published under the title of " The Crime against 
Kansas." In the interval the lawless proceedings 
in Kansas continued, and the authorities of the 
territory exerted all their power to crush the free 
state party. The invasions from Missouri con- 
tinued, and in May, 1856, one of his officers re- 
ported to Colonel Sumner, who commanded the 
federal troops : " There are probably five to seven 
hundred armed men on the pro-slavery side organ- 
ized into companies. . . . For the last two or 
three days these men have been stationed between 
Lawrence and Lecompton, stopping and disarming 
all free state men, making some prisoners, and in 



!38 CHARLES SUMNER 

many cases pressing the horses of free state settlers 
into service." 

These outrages culminated on May 21 in an 
attack on Lawrence, made by the United States 
marshal and the sheriff with a party of Missourians 
which they called a posse, when the sheriff de- 
manded the surrender of all arms, while a body 
of his followers broke the presses, type, and appli- 
ances of the two newspapers, burnt the Free State 
Hotel, broke into and plundered stores and houses, 
and burnt some dwellings. This attack on Law- 
rence was imminent when Sumner began his speech 
in the Senate. 

This brief sketch of events has been given to 
remind the reader of the conditions under which 
he spoke, and the reasons for the fierce indig- 
nation which inspired his speech. Sumner had 
prepared it carefully, and, as he wrote to Theo- 
dore Parker, he meant it to be " the most thorough 
philippic ever uttered in a legislative body." He 
who reads the speech now will find it a terrible 
indictment of a policy which should have been 
impossible in a free country, and of men whose 
views and whose acts seem absolutely indefensible. 
It was an unanswerable presentation of eternal 
truths against the falsehoods of the hour. Its 
strength lies in its clear and strong statement of 
the whole case, from the passage of the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill down to the attack on Lawrence; 
the facts are marshaled effectively ; the conduct of 
the administration and its representatives in Kan- 



THE BROOKS ASSAULT 139 

sas is described in terms which are forcible from 
their naked truth ; the arguments in their defense 
are riddled ; and civil war as the inevitable result 
is clearly prophesied. Delivered as the speech 
was with the earnestness of intense conviction, 
when Sumner was in the full possession of his 
splendid powers as an orator and was inspired by 
his audience, it is very easy to understand the effect 
produced alike upon friends and opponents. 
Framed after classical orations, its resemblance to 
his models is at times too close, and the speech 
is marred by the elaborate attacks on his leading 
opponents, though these were hardly written in 
cold blood, for Sumner was aflame with indigna- 
tion even in the solitude of his study. A man 
with a keener sense of humor would not have writ- 
ten them, but Sumner delivered them with con- 
scientious earnestness. The feeling which led him 
to speak as he did may be gathered from his lan- 
guage to a friend. " There is a time for every- 
thing; and when crime and criminals are thrust 
before us they are to be met by all the energies 
that God has given us, — by argument, sarcasm, 
scorn and denunciation. The whole arsenal of 
God is ours ; and I will not renounce one of the 
weapons, — not one ! " It is impossible by quota- 
tion here to do the speech justice, but one or two 
of the most irritating passages must be quoted in 
view of what followed. He compared Butler and 
Douglas to Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, and 
then proceeded as follows: "The senator from 



140 CHARLES SUMNER 

Soutli Carolina has read many books of chivalry, 
and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sen- 
timents of honor and courage. Of course he has 
chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, 
and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to 
him ; though polluted in the sight of the world, is 
chaste in his sight : I mean the harlot Slavery. 
. . . Let her be impeached in character, or any 
proposition be made to shut her out from the ex- 
tension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of 
manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great 
for this senator. The frenzy of Don Quixote in 
behalf of his wench Dulcinea del Toboso is all sur- 
passed. ... If the slave States cannot enjoy what, 
in mockery of the great fathers of the Kepublic, 
he misnames Equality under the Constitution, — in 
other words, the full power in the national terri- 
tories to compel fellow men to unpaid toil, to sepa- 
rate husband and wife, and to sell little children 
at the auction block, — then, sir, the chivalric sen- 
ator will conduct the State of South Carolina out 
of the Union ! Heroic knight ! Exalted senator ! 
A second Moses come for a second exodus ! . . . 

" As the senator from South Carolina is the 
Don Quixote, so the senator from Illinois is the 
squire of Slavery, its very Sancho Panza, ready to 
do its humiliating offices. This senator, in his 
labored address vindicating his labored report, — 
piling one mass of elaborate error upon another 
mass, — constrained himself, as you will remember, 
to unfamiliar decencies of speech. . . . Standing 



THE BROOKS ASSAULT 141 

on this floor, the senator issued his rescript re- 
quiring submission to the usurped power of Kan- 
sas ; and this was accompanied by a manner — all 
his own — befitting the tyrannical threat. . . . 

" The senator dreams that he can subdue the 
North. He disclaims the open threat, but his con- 
duct implies it. How little that senator knows 
himself, or the strength of the cause which he per- 
secutes ! He is but mortal man ; against him is 
immortal principle. With finite power he wres- 
tles with the infinite, and he must fall. Against 
him are stronger battalions than any marshaled by 
mortal arm, — the inborn, ineradicable, invincible 
sentiments of the human heart ; against him is 
Nature with all her subtile forces ; against him is 
God. Let him try to subdue these. . . . 

" With regret I come again upon the senator 
from South Carolina, who, omnipresent in this de- 
bate, overflows with rage at the simple suggestion 
that Kansas has applied for admission as a State, 
and, with incoherent phrase, discharges the loose 
expectoration of his speech, now upon her repre- 
sentative and then upon her people. There was 
no extravagance of the ancient parliamentary de- 
bate which he did not repeat ; nor was there any 
possible deviation from truth which he did not 
make, — and with so much of passion, I gladly add, 
as to save him from the suspicion of intentional 
aberration. But the senator touches nothing 
which he does not disfigure — with error some- 
times of principle, sometimes of fact. He shows 



r 



142 CHARLES SUMNER 

an incapacity of accuracy, whether in stating the 
Constitution or in stating the law, whether in de- 
tails of statistics or diversions of scholarship. He 
cannot ope his mouth, but out there flies a blun- 
der. . . . 

" Were the whole history of South Carolina 
blotted out of existence, from its very beginning 
down to the day of the last election of the senator 
to his present seat on this floor, civilization might 
lose — I do not say how little, but surely less than 
it has abeady gained by the example of Kansas, in 
that valiant struggle against oppression, and in the 
development of a new science of emigration. . . . 
Ah, sir, I tell the senator that Kansas, welcomed 
as a free State, ' a ministering angel shall be ' to 
the Republic when South Carolina, in the cloak 
of darkness which she hugs, ' lies howling.' " 

No sooner had Sumner taken his seat than the 
feelings which his speech provoked found expres- 
sion. Cass first condemned his speech as " the most 
un-American and unpatriotic that ever grated on 
the ears of the members of this high body." 
Douglas followed, attacking Sumner with great 
violence, and saying : " Is it his object to provoke 
some of us to kick him as we would a dog in the 
streets, that he may get sympathy upon the just 
chastisement ? " and again : " We have had another 
dish of the classics served up, — classic allusions, 
each one distinguished for its lasciviousness and 
obscenity : " alluding to Sumner's description of the 
policy pursued in Kansas as " the rape of a virgin 



THE BROOKS ASSAULT 143 

territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of 
slavery." Mason came next, saying : " I am con- 
strained to hear here depravity, vice in its most 
odious form uncoiled in this presence, exhibiting 
its loathsome deformities in accusation and vilifi- 
cation against the quarter of the country from 
which I come ; and I must listen to it because it 
is a necessity of my position, under a common gov- 
ernment, to recognize as an equal politically one 
whom to see elsewhere is to shun and despise." 

Sumner replied, speaking affectionately of Cass 
and regretting his attitude, but dealing otherwise 
with Douglas. To the latter's assertion that Sum- 
ner took his seat in the Senate, and swore to 
support the Constitution while determined not to 
support a part of it, he gave a direct denial. He 
stated his exact position, quoted from the debates, 
and then, after alluding to the repeated personali- 
ties of Douglas, proceeded : — 

" Sir, this is the Senate of the United States, an 
important body under the Constitution, with great 
powers. Its members are justly supposed, from 
years, to be above the intemperance of youth, and 
from character, to be above the gusts of vulgarity. 
They are supposed to have something of wisdom 
and something of that candor which is the hand- 
maid of wisdom. Let the senator bear these things 
in mind, and remember hereafter that the bowie 
knife and bludgeon are not proper emblems of sen- 
atorial debate. . . . The senator infused into his 
speech the venom sweltering for months, — ay, for 



144 CHARLES SUMNER 

years ; and lie lias alleged matters entirely without 
foundation, in order to heap upon me some per- 
sonal obloquy. I will not descend to things which 
dropped so naturally from his tongue. I only 
brand them to his face as false. I say also to that 
senator, and I wish him to bear it in mind, that 
no person with the upright form of a man can be 
allowed — (Hesitation.') 

" Mr. Douglas : Say it. 

" Mr. Sumner : I will say it, — no person with 
the upright form of a man can be allowed, without 
violation of all decency, to switch out from his 
tongue the perpetual stench of offensive person- 
ality. Sir, that is not a proper weapon of debate, 
at least on this floor. The noisome, squat, and 
nameless animal to which I now refer is not the 
proper model for an American senator. "Will the 
senator from Illinois take notice ? " 

These, the bitterest personalities ever used by 
Sumner in debate, were uttered in the excitement 
following a long speech and under extreme provo- 
cation. It is difficult after the lapse of years to 
reproduce the conditions and make the reader 
understand the feeling of the day ; but a few words 
may be quoted from the correspondent of a Mis- 
souri newspaper, who was probably no partial 
critic : — 

"That Sumner displayed great ability, and 
showed that in oratorical talent he was no un- 
worthy successor of Adams, Webster, and Everett, 
no one who heard him will deny. In vigor and 



THE BROOKS ASSAULT 145 

richness of diction, in felicity and fecundity of il- 
lustration, in breadth and completeness of view, he 
stands unsurpassed. ... In his reply to Cass, 
Douglas, and Mason, who stung him into excite- 
ment, he was more successful than at any other 
time. The collision knocked fire from him ; and 
well it might, for he was abused and insulted as 
grossly as any man could be ; but he replied 
successfully to the unmeasured vituperation of 
Douglas, and the aristocratic and withering hau- 
teur of Mason." 

Whittier, the poet, wrote the verdict of those 
whom Sumner represented : " I have read and re- 
read thy speech, and I look upon it as thy best. 
A grand and terrible philippic, worthy of the 
great occasion ; the severe and awful truth which 
the sharp agony of the national crisis demanded. 
It is enough for immortality." Longfellow called 
it " the greatest voice on the greatest subject that 
has been uttered since we became a nation." The 
London " Times," discussing it as a " provoca- 
tion " for violence, said : " The speech was elabo- 
rately strong, but not stronger than many delivered 
within the walls of Parliament during the discus- 
sion of the Reform and Emancipation bills." 

The effect on the country was at once intensified 
by the events now to be narrated. On Thursday, 
the 22d, the Senate adjourned early, but Sumner 
remained writing letters. While he was thus en- 
gaged, with his legs stretched out under his desk, 
which was firmly screwed to the floor, Preston S. 



146 CHAKLES SUMNER 

Brooks, the son of Senator Butler's cousin, and a 
representative from South Carolina, came up and 
said, " Mr. Sumner." Sumner looked up and saw 
a perfect stranger, who said, "I have read your 
speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South 
Carolina and on Mr. Butler, who is a relative of 
mine " — Then, without completing the sentence, 
he struck Sumner a blow on the head with a heavy 
gutta-percha cane, and followed it by a series of 
blows until the cane broke. Sumner struggled to 
rise, and in so doing wrenched his desk from the 
floor and gained his feet, but, by the time he had 
done so, his consciousness had gone, and beneath 
the continuing blows he fell senseless on the floor. 
Brooks was a very powerful man, over six feet tall, 
and he struck with his full strength. Toombs of 
Georgia, who witnessed and approved the outrage, 
testified of the blows : " They were very rapid, and 
as hard as he could hit. They were hard licks, 
and very effective." Brooks himself, in the House 
of Representatives, said: "I went to work very 
deliberately, as I am charged, — and this is ad- 
mitted, — and speculated somewhat as to whether 
I should employ a horsewhip or a cowhide ; but 
knowing that the senator was my superior in 
strength, it occurred to me that he might wrest it 
from my hand, and then — for I never attempt 
anything I do not perform — I might have been 
compelled to do that which I would have regretted 
the balance of my natural life." 

He had made his purpose known to Edmundson, 



THE BROOKS ASSAULT 147 

a representative from Virginia, and to Keitt, one 
of his colleagues from South Carolina, and both 
were present in the senate chamber at the time. 
Edmundson had advised with Brooks on Monday 
and Wednesday, and was present at his request. 
Keitt, when the assault began, hurried up, flourish- 
ing a cane, as if to prevent any interference with 
Brooks until his purpose was accomplished. 

Senators Slidell and Douglas were in the ante- 
room when some one rushed in and cried out that 
a man was beating Sumner. Slidell said in the 
Senate : " We heard the remark without any par- 
ticular emotion ; for my own part I confess I felt 
none. I am not accustomed to participate in broils 
of any kind. ... I have no associations or rela- 
tions of any kind with Mr. Sumner. ... I did 
not think it necessary to express my sympathy or 
make any advances towards him." Douglas said : 
" My first impression was to come into the senate 
chamber and help put an end to the affray if I 
could ; but it occurred to my mind in an instant 
that my relations to Mr. Sumner were such that, if 
I came into the hall, my motives would be miscon- 
strued perhaps, and I sat down again." Toombs 
said : " As for rendering Mr. Sumner any assist- 
ance, I did not do it. As to what was said, some 
gentleman present condemned it in Mr. Brooks ; I 
stated to him, or to some of my own friends pro- 
bably, that I approved it. That is my opinion." 

Sumner's head was bruised and gashed, and 
the flow of blood was so copious as to drench his 



148 CHARLES SUMNER 

clothes and those of the men who helped him, but 
the thickness of his hair apparently prevented a 
fracture of the skull and saved his life. He re- 
gained his consciousness, his wounds were sewed 
up, and he was taken to his lodgings, still in a 
partly stupefied condition. On reaching his rooms 
he said to Wilson that he should renew the contest 
with slavery so soon as he could return to his seat. 
An assault, even of this cowardly and aggra- 
vated nature, was in itself a matter of compara- 
tively trifling importance. There are always men 
who in moments of great excitement, or for reasons 
affecting them individually, will commit a crime. 
The tone adopted by the pro-slavery party in 
regard to the act, however, gave it the greatest 
significance. The next day in the Senate Wilson 
called attention to Sumner's chair, vacant for the 
first time during his five years of service, and 
briefly narrated the facts, stating that they showed 
a grave offense not only against Sumner, but 
against the rights of the Senate, which called for 
prompt action. Seward moved a committee of in- 
quiry. Mason moved as an amendment that the 
committee be appointed by the Senate, and not 
named by the president of that body. Seward 
accepted this, and the resolution was adopted. 
The committee was made up wholly of Sumner's 
political opponents, not a single Republican being 
chosen. Five days later it reported the facts 
briefly without comment, but with the conclusion 
that "the Senate, for a breach of its privileges, 



THE BROOKS ASSAULT 149 

cannot arrest a member of the House of Repre- 
sentatives, and a fortiori cannot try and punish 
him ; " that the House alone could deal with the 
case, and that the Senate could " not proceed fur- 
ther than to make complaint to the House of Re- 
presentatives of the assault committed by one of 
its members." The only action of the Senate was 
an order that this report with the accompanying 
affidavits be sent to the House of Representatives. 

In the House a committee of investigation was 
appointed on the day of the assault, with instruc- 
tions to report the facts and such resolutions as 
seemed " necessary for the vindication of the char- 
acter of the House." The Southern members with 
some Northern Democrats resisted the appointment 
of this committee, on the ground that there was no 
breach of privilege since the assault was not on a 
member of the House, but the resolution was passed 
by a vote of ninety-three to sixty-eight. The com- 
mittee consisted of three Northern Republicans and 
two Southern Democrats. They heard witnesses, 
and in about a week presented a majority and a 
minority report. The former stated the facts and 
recommended resolutions expelling Brooks and cen- 
suring Edmundson and Keitt. The latter, signed 
by the two Democrats, concluded with a resolution 
that the House had no jurisdiction over the assault 
" alleged to have been committed," and therefore 
deemed " it improper to express any opinion on 
the subject." 

These resolutions did not come before the House 



150 CHARLES SUMNER 

for action until July 9. Meanwhile Brooks had 
been tried for the assault in the Circuit Court of 
the District, and sentenced to pay a fine of three 
hundred dollars. After a debate lasting some 
four days, the minority resolution was defeated, 
yeas 66, nays 145. The resolution expelling 
Brooks did not receive the necessary two thirds 
of the votes cast, but a resolution censuring him 
was passed. The censure of Keitt was voted by 
ten majority, and the House declined to censure 
Edmundson by a vote of 60 against 136. Only 
one Southern vote was cast for the expulsion of 
Brooks. Immediately after the vote upon the re- 
solution of expulsion, Brooks arose and announced 
his resignation. He left on July 14, returned to 
South Carolina, was reelected, receiving all the 
votes cast but six, and on August 1 again took 
the oath as a member of the House. Keitt also 
resigned, and also was returned to the House by a 
unanimous vote. 

This brief statement of the facts as they appear 
of record is sufficient to excite our wonder, but 
the language used by the defenders of Brooks was 
amazing. In October his constituents gave him 
a public dinner, " in testimony of their complete 
indorsement of his congressional course," and in- 
vited Senator Mason of Virginia and Jefferson 
Davis, the secretary of war. Both wrote regret- 
ting their inability to accept, and in cold blood, 
months after the assault, Mason said of Brooks : 
" I know of none whose public career I hold more 



THE BROOKS ASSAULT 151 

worthy of the full and cordial approbation of his 
constituents than his. He has shown himself alike 
able and prompt to sustain the rights and the in- 
terests of his constituents in debate and by vote, 
or to vindicate in a different mode, and under 
circumstances of painful duty, the honor of his 
friend." Davis expressed his "high regard and 
esteem " for Brooks, and his " sympathy with the 
feeling which prompted the sons of Carolina to 
welcome the return of a brother who has been the 
subject of vilification, misrepresentation, and per- 
secution because he resented a libelous assault 
upon the reputation of their mother." 

In the debate members defended and applauded 
the act of Brooks. Public meetings were held in 
his honor. Students at the University of Virginia 
voted to send him a cane with " a heavy gold head, 
which will be suitably inscribed, and also bear upon 
it a device of the human head badly cracked and 
broken." The "Richmond Enquirer," in reporting 
this meeting, added, " The chivalry of the South, it 
seems, has been thoroughly aroused." Similar tes- 
timonials were sent him in great numbers from all 
parts of the South. On June 12 the same news- 
paper said : " In the main, the press of the South 
applauds the conduct of Mr. Brooks without con- 
dition or limitation. Our approbation, at least, is 
entire and unreserved ; we consider the act good in 
conception, better in execution, and best of all in 
consequence. ... It was a proper act, done at the 
proper time and in the proper place." 



152 CHARLES SUMNER 

These are but specimens of numerous utterances 
by the recognized leaders and the public press of 
the South. By the open approval of many, and by 
the silence of others who could not applaud such a 
brutal and cowardly assault, the South made the 
act of Brooks its own, and that, which as the crime 
of an individual might have passed almost un- 
heeded, became by adoption the crime of the whole 
pro-slavery party. 

The assault and the manner in which it was re- 
ceived excited general and intense indignation at 
the North, expressed in the resolutions of public 
meetings, the resolves of the Massachusetts legis- 
lature, the speeches and letters of leading men in 
every walk of life and of all political opinions, and 
in the public press. The real effect of slavery, its 
brutalizing influence on master as well as slave, the 
essential barbarism of the system, and the danger 
to the liberty of free citizens which its continuance 
and extension involved, were brought home to men 
as by a flash of lightning. Those, who had been 
slow to read the lesson taught on the plains of 
Kansas, had their eyes opened by the strokes of 
Brooks. It is doubtful whether in his whole life 
Sumner ever struck a blow at slavery so effective 
as that which, through him, it received from Brooks. 
From that moment, on both sides of the Atlantic, 
the real spirit of " Southern chivalry " was re- 
vealed. Quotations might be multiplied, but the 
feeling and resolve of the North are perhaps epito- 
mized best in the entry which Emerson made in 



THE BROOKS ASSAULT 153 

his journal : " Sumner's attack is of no impor- 
tance ; it is only a leaf of the tree. It is not 
Sumner who must be avenged, but the tree must be 
cut down. . . . But this stroke rouses the feeling 
of the people, and shows every one where they are. 
All feel it. Those who affect not to feel it must 
perforce share the shame, nor will hiding their 
heads and pretending other tasks and a preoccu- 
pied mind deceive themselves or us." 

The outrages in Kansas and this reply of slavery 
to the man who had characterized these outrages 
justly were but the first steps in the civil war, and 
did much to hasten it. 



/ 



CHAPTER IX 

THE RESULTS OF THE ASSAULT 

The result of the act, as an incident in the con- 
test for freedom, has been stated. Its effect upon 
Sumner personally was serious and lasting. When 
he was carried to the anteroom of the Senate, it 
was believed that his injuries were fatal, but he 
revived more rapidly than was expected, and even 
thought of going to the Senate on the day after 
the assault. For several days, indeed, he seemed 
to be doing well ; but then unfavorable symptoms 
appeared, — high fever, a threatening of erysipelas, 
and much inflammation of the scalp. The wound 
was opened, and for some days he remained in a 
very critical condition ; but the immediate danger 
passed, and the cuts healed. 

During the summer he went to various places in 
search of health, but without success. In August 
the action of his heart was weak, his gait was tot- 
tering and uncertain, the slightest exertion was 
followed by lassitude, his nights were wakeful, and 
any mental effort was followed by a sense of weight 
and a throbbing pain in the head. On October 9 
he wrote: "My brain and whole nervous system 
are jangled and subject to relapse." 



THE RESULTS OF THE ASSAULT 155 

Within a week or two after the assault, the gov- 
ernor of Massachusetts recommended the legisla- 
ture to pay the expenses of Sumner's illness, but 
when he heard of it, he telegraphed his hope that 
this would not be pressed, adding, " Whatever 
Massachusetts can give, let it be given to suffer- 
ing Kansas." Some of his friends, including 
Josiah Quincy, Longfellow, Dana, Adams, and 
others, began a subscription for a testimonial ; but 
this, likewise, he discouraged, making the same 
suggestion that any contributions be given to 
Kansas. 

The campaign of 1856 was in progress, and he 
longed to take part in it, but this was clearly im- 
possible. He could not refrain, however, from 
writing letters in support of the Republican candi- 
dates, and he wrote many in answer to requests 
from different parts of the country. In none of his 
speeches or letters, at this time or afterward, was 
there the least expression of indignation at the 
attack on himself or any personal allusion to his 
assailant. Years afterward, when walking with 
George William Curtis in the Congressional Ceme- 
tery, his attention was called to the cenotaph of 
Brooks, which he had not seen. Curtis asked him : 
" How did you feel about Brooks ? " He answered : 
" Only as to a brick that should fall upon my head 
from a chimney. He was the unconscious agent 
of a malign power." His hostility was directed 
against slavery ; not against slaveholders. 

He was unable to take his seat in the Senate 



156 CHARLES SUMNER 

again in December and talked of resigning, but 
was persuaded to abandon this idea. Towards 
the end of the session, however, it became apparent 
that the vote on the Tariff bill of 1857 would be 
close, and as he wished the duties on raw material 
reduced, he went to Washington and entered the 
Senate February 26, 1857, for the first time since 
the assault. He found himself unable to remain 
and went to his lodging, but returned in the even- 
ing and stayed until an early hour in the morning, 
o-ivino- on two occasions the vote which saved the 
bill. Except on this day he was not present in 
the chamber during the session. 

He describes his condition in a letter to Theo- 
dore Parker, March 1, 1857, as follows : " I have 
sat in my seat only on one day. After a short 
time the torment to my system became great and 
a cloud began to gather over my brain. I tottered 
out and took to my bed. I long to speak, but I 
cannot. . . . My own daily experience, while sat- 
isfying me of my improvement, shows a subtle and 
complete overthrow of my powers organically, from 
which I can hope to recover only slowly." 

While Sumner was thus disabled the contest in 
Kansas and in the country had been proceeding. 
The sacking of Lawrence, instead of crushing 
the Free State party, had fired their indignation. 
A guerrilla warfare ensued in which many lives 
were lost, and it was in this that John Brown of 
Osawatomie first acquired prominence. The ma- 
jority of the investigating committee appointed 



THE RESULTS OF THE ASSAULT 157 

by the House reported that the elections had been 
carried by invaders from Missouri, that all the pro- 
ceedings in Kansas had been irregular, that the 
conditions were such as to make fair elections im- 
possible without further legislation, and that the 
Topeka convention represented the majority of the 
people. There followed a struggle between the two 
branches of Congress, the effort of the Republican 
House being to secure the admission of Kansas 
under the Topeka constitution, while the Demo- 
cratic Senate proposed a new convention which 
should frame a constitution and so pave the way 
for the admission of Kansas. Congress adjourned 
without legislating, and left Kansas to its fate. 

The country immediately plunged into the presi- 
dential election. The Republican party, for the 
first time a national organization, named John C. 
Fremont, and, relying on the indignation which the 
struggle in Kansas and the attack upon Sumner 
had aroused, confidently expected to elect him, but 
he lost four Northern States, and James Buchanan 
was chosen president. Massachusetts gave the Re- 
publicans an enormous majority, and the reelec- 
tion of Sumner was certain. He had been steadily 
gaining ground among his constituents during his 
whole term in the Senate. The assault upon him 
had been felt as an attack upon the State, and so 
soon as the legislature met he was reelected, receiv- 
ing a unanimous vote in the Senate, and all but 
twelve out of three hundred and forty-five votes 
in the House. At his first election he had been 



158 CHARLES SUMNER 

the candidate of a party which included about one 
fifth of the voters in the State, while now it threw 
about two thirds of the votes cast. Then he could 
expect to find only two or three senators in sym- 
pathy with his views; now his party had some 
twenty senators. Six years had wrought a great 
change in the sentiments alike of Massachusetts 
and of the whole country. On March 4, 1857, 
Sumner took the oath for the second time, and 
three days later he sailed for France. On the 
same morning the newspapers announced the deci- 
sion of the Supreme Court in the case of Dred 
Scott. His assailant, Brooks, had died six weeks 
before, and Butler, in whose behalf Brooks as- 
sumed to strike, died a few weeks afterward. 

Some nineteen years earlier he had made the 
same journey, full of enthusiasm and vigor, with the 
world before him and only his own personality to 
make good the commendations of his friends. Now, 
a man of forty-six, with a reputation on both sides 
of the ocean, but broken in health and depressed 
in spirit, he was to renew the friendships made on 
his former trip, and to extend his acquaintance 
among the leading men of France and England. 
He reached Paris on March 23, and spent a little 
more than seven months in Europe. A portion of 
this time he devoted to traveling on the continent, 
and the rest was divided between Paris, England, 
and Scotland. 

In Paris he saw the best of French society, while 
in England his life seems to have been a round of 



THE RESULTS OF THE ASSAULT 159 

breakfasts and dinners in the company of the most 
distinguished Englishmen. He met Gladstone for 
the first time, and as the guest of John Bright made 
his acquaintance, the beginning of a lifelong friend- 
ship. This visit placed him in relation with many- 
influential men like Cobden, Palmerston, Lord 
John Russell, the Duke of Argyll, Dr. Lushing- 
ton, Lord Cranworth, and William E. Forster, 
and he was thus enabled to exert a most important 
influence during the civil war. The Duchess of 
Sutherland and her daughter, the Duchess of 
Argyll, who were very hostile to slavery, were 
especially cordial, and the latter corresponded with 
him until his death. 

What a strong man could hardly have done with- 
out fatigue, naturally did not cure a man in his con- 
dition. Yet the pleasure and excitement diverted 
his attention from himself, and the change from 
the intensity of political conflict at home to the 
friendly atmosphere of cultivated English society 
was doubtless refreshing. Gladstone, Bright, and 
de Tocqueville were pleasant substitutes for Doug- 
las and Toombs, and Sumner was encouraged to 
believe that his recovery was at hand, though lead- 
ing physicians in England strongly advised him not 
to return. Nevertheless, he sailed on November 7, 
and arrived in Boston on November 19. The next 
evening he attended a lecture in the Tremont Tem- 
ple, where he spoke briefly, but he made no other 
public appearance until Congress met on Decem- 
ber 7, 1857, when he took his seat in the Senate. 



160 CHARLES SUMNER 

The Kansas question in its most acute stage at 
once engaged the attention of Congress, and Sum- 
ner was impatient to take part in the debate ; but 
his physicians forbade him even to listen, and he 
was obliged to leave the Senate on the third day of 
the session, when Douglas began his speech against 
the position of the administration. For two weeks 
he attended during the morning hour, and spent 
the rest of his time quietly at his rooms, in the Li- 
brary of Congress, or at the Smithsonian Institu- 
tion. On December 19 he wrote Theodore Parker: 
" I am unhappy, and yesterday after sitting in 
the Senate I felt like a man of ninety." To Dr. 
Howe : " At times I feel almost well, and then after 
a little writing or a little sitting in the Senate I 
feel the weight spreading over my brain, but at 
least for the present I shall do nothing ; . . . this is 
my fate. Hard ! very hard ! I long to speak." 
The next day he left Washington, and only re- 
turned occasionally, when his vote was required on 
some important question affecting Kansas. 

The difficulty in walking and rising from his seat 
continued, and in April he was attacked with 
pressure on the brain and pain in the back, which 
disabled him. After this condition had continued 
for a month he listened to the advice of physicians 
and friends, and decided again to visit Europe. 
He sailed for Havre on May 21, two years after 
he had received his injury, and on June 1 he 
wrote to John Jay from the ship : " I long for 
work, and especially to make myself felt again in 



THE RESULTS OF THE ASSAULT 161 

our cause. The ghost of two years already dead 
haunts me." 

Before starting he addressed a short letter to his 
constituents, stating briefly his condition and that 
he left the country under the advice of his physi- 
cians. He added that had he foreseen originally 
the duration of his disability, he should at once have 
resigned his seat, and that he had not done so be- 
cause he hoped to recover, and did not wish to lose 
the opportunity of continuing the battle against 
slavery. 

Sumner landed June 1, 1858, and went forth- 
with to Paris, where he consulted Dr. Brown- 
Sequard, who decided that the blows on the head 
had produced a disturbance of the spinal cord. 
The remedy was " fire," and at Sumner's desire 
the moxa was applied the same afternoon. He de- 
clined to take chloroform lest the remedy might be 
less effective, and he submitted to the treatment six 
times in two weeks, the application lasting from 
five to ten minutes each time. A moxa is a f burn- 
ing of the skin with some very combustible sub- 
stance, and the doctor said, " I have never seen a 
man bearing: with such fortitude as Mr. Sumner 
has shown the extremely violent pain of this burn- 
ing." Indeed Brown-Sequard never afterward used 
it, because he considered the pain too severe for the 
human system. The immediate result in Sumner's 
case was an inflammation which made it hard to 
walk or sleep, and kept him in bed for the greater 
part of June and July. 



162 CHARLES SUMNER 

On July 20 lie had the first attack of angina 
pectoris, the intensely painful disease which caused 
his death, and similar attacks occurred for a time 
with great frequency; yet he managed to write 
many letters to England, urging his friends to re- 
sist a change in the attitude of the English gov- 
ernment towards the slave trade, which then seemed 
possible. After the middle of August he traveled 
in Switzerland, Italy, and Germany, and on Novem- 
ber 8 he wrote from Worms : — 

" The last three or four weeks have shown a 
palpable improvement. ... I feel now certain of 
my ultimate restoration, but know not whether it 
will be in a month or a year. ... I suppose 
Charles F. Adams is now in his father's seat. 
This must tell for the cause everywhere, as his 
presence will tell for it incalculably on the floor of 
Congress. All alone I gave three cheers on the 
night of the election, and startled the streets of 
Munich." 

Under the advice of his physicians, he spent the 
winter at Montpellier, a pleasant city with an an- 
cient university and a gallery, where he occupied 
himself mainly with reading. In February, 1859, 
he wrote to C. F. Adams : — 

" The meeting of Congress this winter presented 
a question of painful embarrassment. There were 
several courses to take. To go home in the face of 
the positive counsel of eminent medical authorities, 
and with a consciousness that I was still an in- 
valid, seemed rash, and hardly to be vindicated, 



THE RESULTS OF THE ASSAULT 163 

but to leave my seat vacant throughout a whole 
session seemed inexcusable. It only remained that 
I should resign. Had I not felt that my case was 
exceptional, and not that of ordinary political life, 
of course I should have yielded to the inevitable 
necessity of this step. But I could not abandon a 
position dearer to me now than ever, because more 
than ever, with returning health, I can hope to 
serve our cause, and because I have at heart to be 
heard again from the seat where my assassination 
was attempted." 

In the spring he went to Rome, remaining there 
three weeks and meeting Story, Motley, Hawthorne, 
and others of his old friends. " Rome now, as 
when I first saw it, touches me more than any 
other place," he wrote to Story as he left. On 
the journey north from Rome he passed through 
bodies of soldiers gathered for the Franco- Austrian 
war, and the battle of Montebello was fought on 
the day before he left Italy. He sympathized 
warmly with the Italians, and at Turin he met 
Cavour, with whom he had a very interesting in- 
terview. 

A month was spent in Paris, and then he went 
to London, where he stayed till July 23. He went 
into society and often attended Parliament, where 
the Speaker gave him a seat for a month under the 
gallery of the House of Commons ; but he over- 
taxed his strength, and was sent to Aix-les-Bains. 
He returned to London on October 10, and his 
account of his last days in England may be quoted : 



164 CHARLES SUMNER 

" Seven days in London at the British Museum ; a 
day with the poet-laureate Tennyson at the Isle of 
Wight; two days with Lord Stanhope, at Cheven- 
ing Park, where I slept in the room which was oc- 
cupied for three years by Lord Chatham ; one day 
at Argyll Lodge, with the duke, where I met Glad- 
stone ; one day with Dr. Lushington at Ockham 
Park in Surrey; one day with my countryman, 
Motley, the historian of the Dutch Commonwealth, 
at Walton-on-Thames ; one day with Lord Claren- 
don at the Grove ; one day with Lord Spencer at 
Althorp ; one day with Lord Belper at Kingston 
Hall ; one day with Lord Hatherton at Teddesley 
Park ; and here I am." He sailed from Liverpool 
on November 5, and reached Boston, November 
21, a well man, prepared again to take his place 
in the Senate, and when the first session of the 
Thirty-sixth Congress met, on December 5, 1859, 
he was in his seat. His constituents had been glad 
to let his chair remain vacant until he himself was 
able to fill it. 



CHAPTER X 

THE TRIUMPH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 

During Sumner's absence the cause of freedom 
had been gaining in Kansas. Under an act of the 
territorial legislature the question of calling a 
convention to frame a state constitution was sub- 
mitted to the people at the election in 1856, and 
as the vote was in favor of the proposition, an act 
was passed in 1857 for the election of delegates. 
This was the state of the contest when Buchanan 
was inaugurated and the Dred Scott decision was 
announced, of which Mr. Justice Curtis, who deliv- 
ered an admirable dissenting opinion, once said : 
" If you ask me what the Supreme Court of the 
United States decided in the case of Dred Scott, I 
answer that I don't know." 

From the conflicting opinions of the judges it 
appeared that, though the case did not call for 
a decision of the question, a majority meant to 
express the opinion that Congress had no power 
to prohibit slavery in any territory of the United 
States. This gave slavery a new weapon, and 
the free state men of Kansas had now to contend 
against the whole power of the government, sus- 
tained by the Supreme Court. When the time 



■«': 



166 CHARLES SUMNER 

came for electing delegates to the constitutional 
convention the free state men asked for correct 
registration and protection at the polls, but the 
governor said he could do nothing. They there- 
fore decided not to vote, and at the election in 
June less than seventeen hundred votes were cast, 
hardly more than " one tenth " of the total vote. 
The pro-slavery men elected their candidates and 
adjourned till October, when they met at Lecomp- 
ton and framed a slave constitution. They di- 
rected that the question should be submitted to the 
people whether they would adopt the constitution 
with slavery or without slavery, each voter being 
required, if challenged, to swear that he would sup- 
port the constitution " if adopted." This ingen- 
ious device was intended to prevent the rejection 
of the constitution as a whole, and to deter free 
state men from voting. 

Meanwhile under the advice of Henry Wilson, 
the free state men voted at the election in October 
for members of the territorial legislature, electing a 
majority in both houses, and the delegate to Con- 
gress by a very large majority. Thus Kansas on a 
fair vote showed itself decisively for freedom, and 
it was clear that the new constitution would be de- 
feated if the people were given a proper opportu- 
nity to vote. Hence the pro-slavery leaders adopted 
the form of submission which denied this. As 
the Charleston " Mercury " said : " Whether the 
clause in the constitution is voted out or voted in, 
slavery exists and has a guaranty in the constitu- 



TRIUMPH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 167 

tion that it shall not be interfered with," this 
guaranty being a provision against interference 
with the right of property in slaves. 

When the Thirty-fifth Congress met, December 
7, 1857, Buchanan in his message approved the 
Lecompton constitution, and stated that the ques- 
tion had been " fairly and explicitly referred to 
the people of Kansas whether they will have a 
constitution with or without slavery." With a 
Democratic president, supported by a Democratic 
Congress chosen when the Kansas troubles were 
fresh in the public mind, and therefore ready to sup- 
port the pro-slavery policy in that territory ; with 
a slave constitution likely to be adopted apparently 
under the forms of law, it seemed as if the fate of 
Kansas was sealed. But help came from an unex- 
pected quarter. After the reading of the President's 
message, Douglas rose, — he who had been at once 
the author and the leading champion of the De- 
mocratic policy in Kansas, — and said : " I totally 
dissent from that portion of the message which 
may fairly be construed as approving of the pro- 
ceedings of the Lecompton convention." 

These few words meant freedom for Kansas — 
meant the final failure of the whole pro-slavery 
campaign. The Lecompton fraud had divided the 
party of slavery. On December 9 Douglas made 
an elaborate speech, in which he asserted that the 
people had been denied the right to decide whether 
Kansas should be free or slave, a right guaran- 
tied by the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and while, as 



168 CHAKLES SOIXER 

he said, he did not care whether they voted slavery 
" up " or " down," he insisted that until the ques- 
tion had been fairly submitted, Kansas could not 
enter the Union as a State. 

On December 1 Stanton, as acting governor of 
Kansas, summoned the new legislature for Decem- 
ber 7, that it might act concerning the Lecompton 
constitution, and it voted that the whole constitu- 
tion be submitted to a popular vote. On Decem- 
ber 21 the vote on the question submitted by the 
Lecompton convention was taken, and 6063 votes 
were cast " for the constitution with slavery," 
against 576 votes " for the constitution without 
slavery." Of the votes for slavery an enormous 
proportion was fraudulent and the free state men 
generally declined to vote. On January 4 the 
vote on the constitution as a whole was taken, and 
10,266 votes were cast against it. These results 
left no doubt as to the wish of the people, and 
greatly strengthened the opposition to the Presi- 
dent's position. None the less he persevered, and 
on February 2, 1858, he sent a special message 
to Congress defending the proceedings by which 
the Lecompton constitution was adopted, and re- 
commending the admission of Kansas under it. To 
secure this the whole power of the administration 
was exerted, but after a bitter struggle the bill 
was defeated in the House of Representatives by 
three votes. Again, as at almost every important 
crisis in our history, the majority for the right was 
very small. 



TRIUMPH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 169 

The Senate, after a heated contest, passed a 
bill to admit Kansas with the Lecompton consti- 
tution, and a struggle between the two Houses 
ensued, which ended in a compromise. This law 
submitted to the people of Kansas the question 
whether they would accept the Lecompton consti- 
tution with the provision that, upon admission, the 
State should receive five per cent of the sums to 
be realized from the sale of public lands within its 
borders, — a very large amount, — or reject both 
money and constitution. If they rejected the con- 
stitution, Kansas was to remain a territory until 
her population should equal the unit-quota of re- 
presentation in Congress, and then a new constitu- 
tional convention was to be chosen. On August 2 
the voters of Kansas repudiated the bribe by an 
overwhelming majority. The Democratic part}' 
had thus striven by fraud, violence, and purchase 
to establish slavery in Kansas. It is at once mor- 
tifying to think how nearly the monstrous attempt 
succeeded, and encouraging to remember that it 
failed. 

Congress adjourned on June 14, and the con- 
gressional campaign of 1858 followed, rendered 
memorable by the great debate between Lincoln 
and Douglas in Illinois. More clearly than ever 
before this campaign was fought upon the ques- 
tion whether slavery or freedom should prevail in 
this country. The Kansas struggle, no longer an 
issue by itself, became an episode in a greater con- 
flict. Seward put the question clearly before the 



170 CHARLES SUMNER 

country in his speech at Kochester, in the words 
so often quoted : " The two systems of free labor 
and slave labor are more than incongruous, — they 
are incompatible. They have never permanently 
existed together in one country, and they never 
can ; ... it is an irrepressible conflict between 
opposing and enduring forces, and it means that 
the United States must and will, sooner or later, 
become either entirely a slaveholding nation or en- 
tirely a free-labor nation." The campaign resulted 
in the choice of a House in which the Eepublicans 
had 109 members, the Democrats 101, and the 
■"Americans" 27. 

The second session of the Thirty-fifth Congress 
began on December 6, 1858, and was noteworthy 
only because the debates emphasized and widened 
the breach between the Douglas Democrats and the 
opposing wing of the party. During this session 
the Kansas legislature passed a law abolishing 
slavery, and also called another constitutional con- 
vention, which met in July and adopted a free 
constitution, ratified by the people in October. 

Before Congress met again John Brown had 
made his raid into Virginia, which resulted in his 
execution for murder, on December 2, with six of 
his followers, and it was amid the profound feeling 
caused by this episode that the Thirty-sixth Con- 
gress — the last before the civil war — convened. 
In this Sumner took his seat, well at last and 
anxious again to share in the conflict. He was 
now one of twenty-four Republican senators, and 



TRIUMPH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 171 

was for the first time given his proper place in the 
formation of committees, being assigned to that on 
foreign relations. 

Under the advice of his physicians to make 
haste slowly, he did not at once enter the debates. 
His first speech was on March 12, against a 
motion made by Mason of Virginia to commit 
Thaddeus Hyatt for refusing to testify before the 
committee appointed to investigate the John Brown 
raid. Early in March he offered a sensible resolu- 
tion to substitute simple declarations for custom- 
house oaths, but the recommendation was not 
adopted. He presented some petitions against 
slavery, but he took no very conspicuous part in 
the proceedings till June. He was feeling his way 
back into active life. 

He busied himself during the early months of 
the session in preparing an exhaustive speech on 
slavery, its nature and its effects. The Southern 
leaders had become more aggressive, and during 
the session resolutions proposed by Jefferson Davis 
were passed by the Senate, declaring that slave 
property could not be interfered with in the terri- 
tories, approving the Fugitive Slave Law, and con- 
demning the personal liberty laws of the Northern 
States. Sumner felt that their attitude should be 
rebuked and the weakness of their cause exposed. 
He had looked forward during his long illness to 
the time when he could again in the Senate tell 
the truth about slavery, and his hour had arrived. 
The House passed a bill for the admission of 



172 CHARLES SUMNER 

Kansas with its free constitution, and when it 
reached the Senate many senators took the oppor- 
tunity to speak on the issues of the coming cam- 
paign. On June 4 Sumner delivered his speech, 
published under the title " The Barbarism of Slav- 
ery." He read it from printed slips and he spoke 
for four hours. The temper of the Senate is indi- 
cated by the following extracts from a letter of 
Hammond of South Carolina to Dr. Lieber, writ- 
ten on April 19, 1860, just a year before the Sixth 
Regiment of Massachusetts was attacked by the 
mob at Baltimore : — 

" So far as I know, and as I believe, every man 
in both Houses is armed with a revolver — some 
with two — and a bowie knife. It is, I fear, in 
the j3ower of any Red or Black Republican to pre- 
cipitate at any moment a collision in which the 
slaughter would be such as would shock the world 
and dissolve the government. ... I tell you — 
knowing all about it — that unless the aggression 
on the slaveholder is arrested, no power short of 
God's can prevent a bloody fight here, and a dis- 
ruption of the Union." 

Sumner was aware of this condition and was 
urged by his friends to arm himself, but replied that 
it was idle, for he should be shot before he could 
draw his weapon, while any attempt to do so would 
be used as evidence that his murderer acted in 
self-defense. His speech showed no trace of re- 
sentment for what he had suffered, unless it was 
to be found in a cold indifference to the feelings 



TRIUMPH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 173 

of his opponents, which was apparent throughout. 
Hitherto he had always shown a certain sympathy 
with the defenders of the wrong, while he attacked 
the wrong itself. Now he seemed to have reached 
a plane whence he regarded them with no concern. 
It was slavery whose enormities he exposed, and 
the time had come when the feelings of men were 
not to be weighed against the duty of destroying 
" the sum of all the villainies." 

The speech was rather an essay upon slavery 
than an argument. Its strength lay in the accu- 
mulation of facts rather than in the eloquence with 
which they were presented ; and the simple recital 
would perhaps have been more effective without 
the rhetorical accompaniments. It was addressed 
to men who had been born under the system and 
who believed in it, and it exposed the wickedness 
and the evil effects of slavery with unsparing, 
almost brutal fidelity. In opening Sumner re- 
minded his audience that his last speech in the 
Senate was made to urge the immediate admission 
of Kansas, with a constitution prohibiting slavery, 
and although years had intervened he took up the 
case precisely where he left it. After briefly re- 
capitulating the wrongs of Kansas, he said that 
the most important part of his argument was un- 
touched in his former speech ; that slavery was the 
motive and therefore " must slavery be discussed 
not indirectly, timidly, and sparingly, but directly, 
openly, and thoroughly." " This is no time," he 
said, " to abandon any advantage in argument. 



174 CHARLES SUMNER 

... It is a solemn battle between right and 
wrong, between good and evil ; such a battle can- 
not be fought with rose water. There is austere 
work to be done, and freedom cannot consent to 
fling away any of her weapons." He quoted from 
the recent statements of senators such passages 
as : " Slavery is a great moral, social, and political 
blessing, — a blessing to the slave and a blessing 
to the master." Its " frame of society is the best 
in the world." It is " ennobling to both races, the 
white and the black." Accepting the issue thus 
tendered and looking at the matter from the stand- 
point of a moralist, he showed the essential bar- 
barism of slavery. He quoted from the statutes 
of the Southern States, from the decisions of their 
courts, from the advertisements in their news- 
papers, from the speeches of their public men, 
from the census, and proved that slavery blasted 
where it existed, and exposed the slave to every 
crime, while brutalizing the master. For examples 
he referred to a recent article in a leading Virginia 
newspaper, offering fifty thousand dollars for the 
head of William H. Seward ; another proposing to 
raise ten thousand dollars for the delivery at Rich- 
mond of Joshua R. Giddings, " or five thousand 
dollars for the production of his head." He quoted 
from speeches made at that same session of Con- 
gress by Southern representatives, which showed 
an absolute brutality now hard to imagine. The 
strength of his terrible picture lay in the fact that 
it was painted by the slave masters themselves. 



TRIUMPH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 175 

Such a speech at the beginning of the campaign 
was intended to be and was a reservoir of facts, 
from which arguments could be drawn by campaign 
speakers for use in discussions the country over. 
Sumner knew that it could have no effect on the 
action of the Senate, but when men were more 
than ever considering the slavery question on 
moral grounds, this speech of the man who had 
been so conspicuous a victim of the barbarism 
which he denounced, and who now spoke for the 
first time after his return to the Senate, had a 
widespread influence. There was great difference 
of opinion even among Republicans as to its wis- 
dom, and many felt that it would anger but not 
convince. A Western newspaper called it " one of 
the ablest, most exasperating, and most useless 
speeches we ever read." All admitted its truth, 
but many doubted whether it would aid the bill 
to admit Kansas or win votes at the coming elec- 
tion. The event proved that Sumner judged 
wisely. He appreciated better the state of public 
feeling than those who were active in the political 
campaign. He believed in appealing to the highest 
motives, and putting the evils of slavery before 
the people so clearly that no one with any moral 
sense could doubt which side was right. It was 
the speech which closed the discussion of slavery 
in Congress, and it seems more like the summing 
up of a merciless judge than the argument of an 
advocate. 

The adjournment of Congress was followed by 



176 CHARLES SUMNER' 

the great campaign of 1860, which resulted in the 
election of Lincoln, and in this Sumner took an 
active interest. Requests to speak poured in upon 
him from all parts of the country, and after the 
adjournment of Congress he spoke for the Repub- 
lican Union at the Cooper Institute before an enor- 
mous audience. This was an effective campaign 
speech in which he repeated his arguments and 
pointed out that by the census of 1850 there were 
only 347,525 slaveholders, of whom a large ma- 
jority held only a very few slaves. He showed 
how great and how pernicious an influence this 
insignificant number exerted on every department 
of the government, and urged the vital necessity 
of saving the country and the age by defeating 
the party which upheld this abuse. As we read 
in the light of to-day what he said of slavery, it is 
difficult to realize how slaveholders believed that 
their institution could be preserved. 

On August 29, for the first time in six years, 
he met the Republicans of Massachusetts in their 
state convention, where he discussed the candidates 
and pointed out that Lincoln stood for freedom, 
while Bell, Breckinridge, and Douglas were all for 
slavery. He paid especial attention to Douglas and 
followed him through his various changes of opinion. 
During the campaign he wrote many letters, and 
spoke often in Massachusetts. At Worcester he 
attacked the theory that popular sovereignty, exer- 
cised by a handful of early settlers, could determine 
the fate of a territory and its immense population 



TRIUMPH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 177 

in the future. His last speech, made in Faneuil 
Hall the night before the election, rings with a 
note of triumph. After alluding to the years that 
had elapsed since he last stood in that place, he 
said : " Could these venerable arches speak, what 
stories could they not tell; . . . the history of 
American freedom, with all its anxieties, struggles, 
and triumphs, commencing before national inde- 
pendence and continued down to the very contest 
now about to close, — all this might be written 
from the voices in this hall. But, thank God, the 
days of defeat, of mourning, of fear, have passed, 
and these walls will record only those notes of vic- 
tory already beginning to sound in our ears. There 
are anniversaries in our history noticed by young 
and old with grateful emotion ; but to-morrow's 
sun will set on a day more glorious for freedom 
than any anniversary since the fourth of July, 
1776. . . . That power which, according to the 
boast of slave masters, has governed the country 
for more than fifty years ; . . . that power which 
has taught us by example how much of tyranny 
there may be in the name of democracy, is doomed. 
The great clock will soon strike, sounding its knell. 
Every four years a new president is chosen, but 
rarely a new government. To-morrow we shall 
have not only a new president, but a new govern- 
ment." 



CHAPTER XI 

SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE 

Threats of disunion were frequent during the 
campaign, and Lincoln was opposed by some on 
the ground that his election would be followed by 
secession. Sumner replied to this argument, point- 
ing out that it had been used before " at seven dif- 
ferent stages in our history," adding : " Whatever 
it might have been at first it is now nothing more 
than ' second childishness and mere oblivion sa?is 
everything.' There is nothing in it which should 
not be treated with indignant contempt, certainly 
when employed here in Massachusetts to make us 
sacrifice our principles." He showed how little it 
would avail " as a remedy for the alleged griev- 
ances of the slave States," and concluded: "Re- 
member that your first duty is to stand up straight, 
and not bend before absurd threats, whether uttered 
at the South or repeated here in Massachusetts. 
Let people cry ' Disunion.' We know what the 
cry means, and we answer back : The Union shall 
be preserved and made more precious by its conse- 
cration to freedom." 

His view was shared by the most sagacious Re- 
publican leaders. Seward derided the cry which 



SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE 179 

the slave power now uttered "with a feeble and 
muttering voice." Thurlow Weed wrote : " Dis- 
solving the Union is a game for the presidency. 
It is nothing but a game. That it will be played 
desperately we admit, because Southern sportsmen 
play desperately." Chase took the same ground, 
and so did all the leading Republican newspapers. 
The party as a whole insisted that the threats of 
disunion were idle. Before Congress met, however, 
it had become apparent that the danger of seces- 
sion was real. In South Carolina the presidential 
electors were chosen by the legislature, and as the 
law required a choice in all the States on the 
same day, the governor convened the legislature on 
November 5. His message invited them "to re- 
main in session, and take such action as would 
prepare the State for any emergency that might 
arise," urging that, if Lincoln were elected, a con- 
vention should at once be called, and expressing 
the opinion that South Carolina must secede and 
the other slave States follow her. The news of 
Lincoln's election was received at Charleston with 
rejoicing, because it insured disunion. On Novem- 
ber 7 the federal grand jury in that city closed its 
session, because the result of the election " involved 
the existence of the government." On the same 
day the district judge of the United States re- 
signed, and his example was followed by the dis- 
trict attorney and the collector. Within a few 
days the legislature called a convention and fixed 
December 7 as the day for electing delegates. 



180 CHAKLES SUMNER 

The legislature of Georgia met the day after the 
election, heard the message of Governor Brown, 
who advised against secession but counseled pre- 
paration, and passed a resolution affirming the 
right of secession. By the middle of November 
the speeches of the governor, the senators, and 
other leading men showed that Georgia would fol- 
low South Carolina. The legislatures of Missis- 
sippi and Florida also met in November, and in 
the same month the governor of Alabama called a 
state convention, and the governor of Louisiana a 
meeting of the legislature, making it clear that all 
these States were on the brink of seceding. 

When Congress met, on December 3, the coun- 
try was face to face with a crisis for which no one 
was really prepared. Everything was uncertain. 
In the South a compact body of men was bent on 
secession, but by no means contemplated civil war. 
They expected to be joined by the border slave 
States so that the new confederation would control 
a large territory and present a united front. They 
depended on the active sympathy of Europe, believ- 
ing that the manufacturing nations would exert 
pressure enough to prevent any war that would 
interrupt their supply of cotton. As Hammond 
said in the Senate : " What would happen if no 
cotton was furnished for three years? England 
would topple headlong and carry the whole civi- 
lized world with her. No, you dare not make war 
upon cotton. No power on earth dares to make 
war upon it." His more enthusiastic associate, 



SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE; 181 

Wigfall of Texas, insisted that " Victoria's crown 
would not stand on her head one week if cotton 
was stopped, nor would her head stand on her 
shoulders." 

They relied also on disunion at the North. 
Some believed that the Northwest would join them 
in order not to lose the control of the Mississippi. 
Others predicted a new union from which New 
England and New Jersey alone would be excluded, 
or to which they would be admitted only on terms 
to be imposed by the slave power. Nearly all 
believed that any attempt at coercion would lead 
to civil war in the free States, and fancied that 
the stoppage of cotton would throw millions out of 
employment, and create disturbances which would 
paralyze the aggressive force of the government. 
Alexander H. Stephens said, " I have but little 
doubt that the North will go into anarchy." With 
such expectations it is not singular that the South- 
ern leaders agreed with Iverson that " there is to 
be no war. The Northern States are controlled by 
sagacious men, like the distinguished senator from 
New York. Where public opinion and action are 
thus controlled by men of common sense, who know 
well that they cannot succeed in a war against the 
Southern States, no such attempt of coercion will 
be made." Hence the Southern leaders were in- 
clined to reject all proposals of compromise, believ- 
ing it better to dictate terms after disunion than to 
negotiate while it was still doubtful. A large body 
of Southerners indeed opposed secession, but they 



182 CHARLES SUMNER 

were not in office, had no leaders or organization, 
and were in no position to make head against their 
aggressive opponents. In some States a majority 
of the voters probably were Union men, but a 
silent and timid majority without leading is hardly 
a force even in a republic. 

Amid such conditions events moved rapidly 
from the meeting of Congress to the inauguration 
of Lincoln. Following the lead of South Carolina, 
which passed her ordinance of secession on Decem- 
ber 20, the Southern States seceded in rapid suc- 
cession. The members of the Cabinet and the 
senators and representatives from the seceding 
States successively resigned their places. On 
January 19 the legislature of Virginia called a 
convention of representatives from all the States 
to find a way of preventing disunion. On Febru- 
ary 4 the Peace Conference, summoned by Vir- 
ginia, met at Washington, while a convention to 
frame a constitution for the new confederacy met 
at Montgomery. On the 8th the Confederate con- 
stitution was adopted. On February 9 Jefferson 
Davis and Alexander H. Stephens were elected 
president and vice-president of the Southern Con- 
federacy, and on February 18 they were inaugu- 
rated at Montgomery. The secessionists marched 
steadily on, and their plans apparently were not 
affected by any suggestions of compromise. 

The national administration was utterly unfitted 
to meet the emergency. The President was old 
and irresolute, anxious only to reach the end of his 



SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE 183 

term in peace and transfer his responsibilities to 
his successor. Of his Cabinet, Floyd, secretary 
of war, and Thompson, secretary of the interior, 
actively aided secession. Thompson communicated 
the secrets of the administration, and Floyd had 
long been stocking the Southern arsenals with 
munitions of war. 

In his message to Congress, December 3, 1860, 
the President blamed the North and admitted that 
the Southern States had been wronged, but denied 
their right to secede, saying that the election of any 
citizen to the presidency was not of itself an excuse 
for such revolutionary action, especially since no 
law injurious to the interests of the South could 
pass both houses of Congress. He recognized his 
duty to enforce the laws, but suggested that where 
the whole machinery of the federal government had 
broken down, as in South Carolina, it was extremely 
difficult to do so. Finally, he found no power in 
the government to prevent secession by force, thus 
telling the secession leaders that they need fear no- 
thing from the administration. 

The seat of active trouble was Charleston, and 
the question, whether the forts in its harbor should 
be reinforced and held, divided the counselors of 
the President and was the subject of negotiation 
between him and commissioners from South Caro- 
lina. The President vacillated, and satisfied no 
one. 

On December 15 Cass, the secretary of state, 
resigned, because the President refused to reinforce 



184 CHARLES SUMNER 

the forts, and on the 29th Floyd resigned, because 
the President would not order Major Anderson to 
leave Fort Sumter. Finally the unarmed steamer 
Star of the West was sent with provisions, but was 
driven back by South Carolina troops advised of 
her sailing by the secretary of the interior. This 
was Buchanan's only attempt to assert the author- 
ity of the United States. From the first day of 
the session to the last he was advising Congress to 
win the seceders back by compromise, and was 
trying to avoid any positive action. 

What was the position of the victorious Republi- 
cans in this crisis? They owed their success to 
the division of their opponents rather than to their 
own strength, and their candidates had received a 
minority of the popular vote even in the Northern 
States. The sudden spectre of disunion, the worse 
one of civil war, appalled a peace-loving commu- 
nity entirely unprepared to fight. Merchants were 
frightened by the probable interruption of rela- 
tions with half the country and the danger of enor- 
mous pecuniary loss. A veritable panic ensued. 
The opponents of the Republicans loudly demanded 
some compromise to relieve the situation, while 
many who had voted for Lincoln joined in the 
demand, regarding civil war as a far worse ca- 
lamity than concession to slavery. Many of the 
abolitionist leaders, Wendell Phillips, Horace 
Greeley, Whittier, and others, urged that no at- 
tempt should be made to hold the seceding States. 
Their view was expressed in Whittier's poem : — 



SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE 185 

" They break the links of Union ; shall -we light 
The fires of hell to weld anew the chain 
On that red anvil where each blow is pain '? "' 

In the face of impending calamity every shade 
of opinion found supporters, and it was not easy to 
tell what course would command public approval. 
A policy was needed which the North would sup- 
port, which would keep the border States from 
joining the South, and which would not sacrifice 
what had been gained by Lincoln's election. It also 
seemed to the Republicans important that any 
open rupture should be avoided, until the inaugura- 
tion of Lincoln should place them in control of the 
government ; for under Buchanan the secessionists 
might gain great advantages. This alone was to 
many a sufficient reason for temporizing. Some 
Republicans felt it most desirable to put the South 
in the wrong, in order to unite the North. Others 
believed it far more essential to stand firm and 
lose none of the ground which had been won with 
such difficulty. A few believed adjustment possi- 
ble and were willing to concede much for the sake 
of peace. From whatever motive, Seward, already 
known to be Lincoln's secretary of state, was active 
in suggesting compromise. The existence of these 
different forces must be recognized in order to 
understand the confused politics of the session. It 
must also be borne in mind that some resolute dis- 
unionists were anxious to avoid hostilities while 
Buchanan was in office, fearing that, if he were 
driven to act against them, the Democrats would 



186 CHARLES SUMNER 

rally to the support of a Democratic president and 
give Lincoln a united North. 

The winter passed in negotiations, and there was 
the gravest danger that the victory so hardly won 
for freedom might be turned into the worst of 
defeats by a surrender. Such a course would not 
only have sacrificed the immediate fruits of the 
victory, but would have paralyzed future effort, by 
making threats of disunion more effective than a 
majority of the votes at a presidential election. 
The results of such a compromise were indicated 
in the following amendment to the Constitution 
proposed during the session : " Whenever a party 
shall be beaten in an election for president and 
vice-president, such party may rebel and take up 
arms, and unless the successful shall adopt as its 
own the principles of the defeated party and con- 
sent to such amendments of the Constitution as 
the latter party shall dictate, then in such case the 
Union shall be at an end." 

In the House of Representatives so much of the 
President's message as related "to the present 
perilous condition of the country " was referred 
to a special committee of one from each State. 
Corwin of Ohio was chairman, and Reuben Davis 
of Mississippi was the most prominent representa- 
tive of the secessionists. On December 15 Davis 
offered a resolution in this committee, that it was 
the duty of the federal government to protect slave 
property like all other property on land and water. 
The Southern members agreed to it, and promised 



SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE 187 

to recommend it as a final settlement of the slavery 
question. It was defeated by the casting vote of 
the chairman, and the Southern members left the 
committee room. From that moment it was appar- 
ent that this committee could not agree. 

In the Senate a motion to refer so much of the 
message as related to the condition of the coun- 
try was not adopted until the 18th, after a debate. 
Sumner read a letter of President Jackson, writ- 
ten on May 1, 1833, in which these striking 
words occurred : " Take care of your nullifiers ; 
you have them among you ; let them meet with the 
indignant frowns of every man who loves his coun- 
try. The tariff, it is now known, was a mere pretext 
. . . and disunion and a Southern Confederacy the 
real object. The next pretext will be the negro or 
slavery question." On December 18 Mr. Critten- 
den introduced his compromise resolutions, propos- 
ing six articles for the Constitution and many legis- 
lative acts. He spoke in support of his plan on 
January 7, and his resolutions were antagonized 
by an amendment introduced by Mr. Clark of New 
Hampshire, to the effect that " the provisions of 
the present Constitution are ample for the preser- 
vation of the Union and the protection of all the 
material interests of the country ; that it needs to 
be obeyed rather than amended ; . . . and therefore 
to the maintenance of the existing Union and Con- 
stitution should be directed all the energies of all 
the departments of the government and the efforts 
of all good citizens." On January 16 this sub- 



183 CHARLES SUMNER 

stitute was adopted, owing to the fact that the sen- 
ators from the Gulf States did not vote. A motion 
to reconsider, however, was carried, and the resolu- 
tions of Crittenden lay upon the table until, on the 
last day of the session, they were called up by Ma- 
son of Virginia and defeated, most of the Southern 
senators having withdrawn or withholding their 
votes. 

In the House the committee of thirty-three, after 
much discussion, submitted eight reports on Janu- 
ary 14, but not one of these was fully approved by 
a majority of the whole committee. 

The so-called majority report urged the impor- 
tance of respecting the constitutional obligation to 
return fugitive slaves, and proposed resolutions 
that all state legislation obstructing the execution 
of the Fugitive Slave Law should be discouraged ; 
that Congress had no right to interfere with slavery 
in the States ; that there was no ground for the 
dissolution of the Union ; that the States should 
revise their laws concerning the right of citizens of 
one State to travel in another ; and that the States 
should enact proper laws against the invasion of 
one State by another. The report proposed an 
amendment to the Constitution, declaring that Con- 
gress should have no power to interfere with slav- 
ery where it existed, " until every State in the 
Union, by its individual state action, shall con- 
sent to its exercise." It also recommended that 
New Mexico be admitted as a State with its pro- 
slavery code. To the surprise of many, Charles 



SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE 189 

Francis Adams supported these recommendations. 
Into his reasons for so doing, it is unnecessary to 
enter. He was essentially a diplomat, and his 
policy was to discuss concession until the control 
of the government was secured. 

Sumner was absolutely opposed to compromise. 
His object was the destruction of slavery because 
it was wrong, and any concession to it was to him 
impossible. From the time when he enlisted 
against it, he never saw the hour when he would 
have hesitated to use every legal power to free 
his country from its great curse. The attitude of 
Adams was to him inconceivable, for he believed 
that the offer of compromise might be accepted. 
The very intimacy of their previous friendship 
made their disagreement on this point more serious. 
From the difference in their tempers and modes 
of action, it was inevitable that their paths should 
diverge, and at this point they separated. The 
result was a coolness which terminated their cordial 
relations. Sumner refrained from taking part in 
the debates, "because," as he said in a private 
letter, " I could say nothing which would not be 
perverted by the compromisers as an attempt to 
widen the breach." By conversation and corre- 
spondence, however, he did much to make his po- 
litical associates stand firm against any concession 
to slavery and disunion. 

The following extracts from his correspondence 
show his position. On January 1, 1861, he wrote 
to William Claflin, president of the Massachusetts 



190 CHARLES SUMNER 

Senate and chairman of the Republican state com- 
mittee : " Massachusetts has now an important 
post. Her most difficult duty is to be true to 
herself and her own noble history. In the name 
of Liberty, I supplicate you not to let her take 
any backward step, — not an inch, not a hair's 
oreadth." 

January 8 he wrote : " Sunday evening I had 
a visit from Thurlow Weed and Seward. . . . 
They urge that we cannot have a united North 
unless we make an effort for adjustment ; to which 
I reply : ' We have the verdict of the people last 
November : that is enough.' The slave States are 
mad. They will all move. Nothing now but ab- 
ject humiliation on the part of the North can stay 
them. Nobody can foresee precisely all that is in 
the future, but I do not doubt that any conflict 
will precipitate the doom of slavery. It will prob- 
ably go down in blood." 

He hastened to deny his alleged adherence to 
the Virginia " Peace Conference," and said : " I 
am against sending commissioners to treat for the 
surrender of the North. Stand firm." 

On February 2, after an interview with the 
President, he wrote to Governor Andrew : " I said 
to him, ' Mr. President, what else can we do in 
Massachusetts for the good of the country?' A 
pause. 'Much, Mr. Sumner.' 'What?' said I. 
' Adopt the Crittenden propositions,' said he. ' Is 
that necessary?' said I. 'Yes,' said he. To which 
I replied, ' Massachusetts has not yet spoken di- 



SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE 191 

rectly ; but I feel authorized to say that, such are 
the unalterable convictions of her people, they 
would see their State sunk below the sea, and 
turned into a sandbank, before they would adopt 
propositions acknowledging property in men, and 
disfranchising a portion of her population.' I think 
I was right." 

When the legislature of Massachusetts was 
urged to repeal her personal liberty laws, Sumner 
wrote to members strongly opposing such action, 
and his influence prevailed. Seward urged com- 
promise, though he offered no definite proposi- 
tions. He seemed to think that a solution might 
be found if a rupture could be avoided until the 
new administration came into power. On Janu- 
ary 12, in a great speech, he recognized the con- 
stitutional obligation to return fugitive slaves, ex- 
pressed his willingness by constitutional amend- 
ment to provide that Congress should never be 
given power to deal with slavery in the States, 
and to pass acts for the admission of future States 
without special prohibition of slavery. Of this 
speech, Sumner wrote to Andrew on January 17 : 
" Our friends are all tranquil, except so far as 
disturbed by Seward's speech. If his propositions 
were pressed, I think they would split the party. 
. . . He read me his speech four days in advance 
of its delivery. I pleaded with him for the sake 
of the cause, the country, and his own good name 
to abandon all his propositions, and simply to 
declare that Mr. Lincoln would be inaugurated on 



192 CHARLES SUMNER 

the 4th of March President of the United States, 
and rally the country to his support. I do not 
think we should allow this opportunity to pass 
without trying the question whether a single State 
can break up the Union. What is it worth, if held 
by any such tenure ? I have no concession or com- 
promise of any kind to propose or favor." 

On the 21st : " Pray keep our beloved common- 
wealth firm ; yet a little longer and the crisis will 
be passed. Save her from surrender. Nothing 
she can do will stay secession. Impossible. Let 
her not write a shameful page in the history of 
human freedom." On the 26th : " The mistake 
of many persons comes from this, — they do not 
see that we are in the midst of a revolution, where 
reason is dethroned, and passion rules instead. . . . 
I have but one prayer, — stand firm, keep every 
safeguard of human rights on our statute-book." 

When the rest of the Massachusetts delegation 
urged Governor Andrew to appoint delegates to 
the Peace Conference, Sumner declined to sign. 
The governor thought it better to send delegates 
in order that volunteers might not go who would 
misrepresent Massachusetts. 

February 10, after the conference had assem- 
bled : " Every word of concession thus far has 
done infinite mischief, — first, by encouraging the 
slave masters ; and, secondly, by demoralizing our 
own friends, and filling them with doubt and dis- 
trust." 

On February 12 Crittenden presented in the 



SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE 193 

Senate in support of his proposals a petition from 
more than twenty thousand citizens of Massachu- 
setts, who alleged that " their sentiments towards 
the Union and towards their common country have 
been misrepresented and misunderstood." This 
brought Sumner to his feet. He pointed out how 
enormously the proposed compromise increased the 
power of slavery, and how it discredited our whole 
system of government, and he took the distinct 
ground that " there is but one thing now for the 
North to do : it is to stand firm." Of this speech 
Emerson wrote to him : " Peace and prosperity 
adhere to your truth and firmness as they ought. 
I am always consoled in the bad times by your 
fidelity." 

It is interesting to compare the words of Sumner 
with the counsels of Lincoln at the same time, who, 
on January 11, 1861, wrote : " We have just car- 
ried an election on principles fairly stated to the 
people. Now we are told in advance the govern- 
ment shall be broken up, unless we surrender to 
those we have beaten before we take the offices. In 
this they are either attempting to play upon us, or 
they are in dead earnest. Either way, if we sur- 
render, it is the end of us and of the government." 
And on February 1 to Seward : " On the territo- 
rial question — that is, the question of extending 
slavery under the national auspices — I am inflexi- 
ble. I am for no compromise which assists or per- 
mits the extension of the institution on soil owned 
by the nation. And any trick by which the nation 



194 CHARLES SUMNER 

is to acquire territory, and then allow some local 
authority to spread slavery over it, is as obnoxious 
as any other. I take it that to effect some such 
result as this, and to put us again on the high road 
to a slave empire, is the object of all these proposed 
compromises. I am against it." 

Chase was equally inflexible, and these views pre- 
vailed. The compromise propositions were defeated. 
The Peace Conference and the committees of 
House and Senate alike failed. The seceding 
States were unwilling to accept any concession that 
the North was prepared to make. On the last day 
of the session the Senate concurred with the House 
in adopting a hastily drawn amendment to the Con- 
stitution, intended to prevent any amendment which 
should give Congress the power to interfere with 
slavery in the States, but this abortive result of the 
attempt to stay a revolution was soon forgotten in 
civil war. 

On March 4, 1861, Lincoln was inaugurated, and 
the withdrawal of the Southern senators left the Re- 
publicans in control of the Senate, which remained 
to act upon the appointments of the new President. 
The committees were at once reorganized, and Sum- 
ner was made chairman of the committee on for- 
eign relations in place of his opponent Mason. 
He had been suggested for the English mission, but 
he preferred to remain in the Senate. His tastes, 
his training, and his European acquaintance fitted 
him well for his new position. It was thoroughly 
agreeable to him, and the selection was approved at 
home and abroad. 



SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE 195 

He was at once interested in the choice of our 
diplomatic representatives. As he wrote : " There 
is chaos in our foreign system. But it is of incal- 
culable importance that our cause should be repre- 
sented at every European government with all the 
character, skill, and persuasion which we can com- 
mand." It was urged then, as it has been ever since, 
that these great positions should be used to reward 
political service and should be distributed geograph- 
ically. To such views Sumner was absolutely op- 
posed, though somewhat inclined to favor men con- 
spicuous for anti-slavery zeal. He felt that a 
minister should speak the language of the country 
to which he was sent, and that fitness was essential. 
His advice was influential but not always control- 
ling, and to some changes he was strongly opposed. 
In one case where an incompetent politician was 
appointed against his urgent counsel, Mr. Lincoln 
came to agree with him, for he afterwards said : 

" When I think of as minister to , I wish 

the earth would open and take me in." 

The only important subject referred to his com- 
mittee during the short session of the Senate was 
the message of the President, asking advice upon 
the question whether the proposition of Great Brit- 
ain to refer the San Juan boundary question 
to arbitration should be accepted. Mr. Sumner 
promptly reported in favor of acceptance and the 
selection of Switzerland as arbiter. 

The Senate adjourned on March 28, 1861, but 
Sumner remained in Washington until after Sum- 



196 CHARLES SUMNER 

ter was fired upon and the administration called 
for troops. Leaving on April 18, he spent the 
night in Baltimore, where he narrowly escaped 
being mobbed. He left there on the morning of 
the day when the Sixth Regiment of Massachusetts 
was fired upon while passing through the city, and 
three days later he addressed the third battalion of 
Massachusetts Rifles in New York on its way to the 
front. His speech was brief but inspiring, and it 
was clear, as his biographer Mr. Pierce says, that 
" at last a war had come which the author of ' The 
True Grandeur of Nations ' thought honorable and 
worthy of every patriot's blessing." 



CHAPTER XII 
EMANCIPATION 

So soon as the true nature of the conflict was 
recognized the question of its effect upon slavery- 
was presented. This was of vital importance, 
especially in the border States, where men were di- 
vided between love of the Union and fear of losing 
property. Even in the free States many were ready 
to support the government in restoring the Union 
who were not yet opposed to slavery, and the ad- 
ministration justly felt that it could not alienate 
these men or strengthen the secessionists in the 
border States. Its first duty was to stop the 
spread of the conflagration and to retain in the 
Union the States which had not seceded. Could 
this be done and the North remain united, the de- 
feat of the South became only a question of time. 
The administration therefore was supported by 
public opinion, when in the early stages of the con- 
flict it declared that its purpose was simply to re- 
store the authority of the government in the seceded 
States, and that slavery would not be interfered 
with. This was stated by Seward in his instruc- 
tions to our foreign representatives. 

In pursuance of this policy the army was in- 



198 CHARLES SUMNER 

structed not to interfere with slaves, and the attor- 
ney-general instructed the marshals of the United 
States in Missouri that the Fugitive Slave Law 
must be executed. The secretary of war met 
General Butler's famous suggestion that slaves 
were " contraband of war " with the statement : "It 
is the desire of the President that all existing rights 
in all the States be fully respected and main- 
tained ; " and the President annulled General Fre- 
mont's order of August 30, 1861, emancipating the 
slaves of those Missourians who should take arms 
against the government. The policy thus pro- 
claimed and carried out was doubtless wise. It 
won for the President the confidence of many who 
had not been his supporters, it strengthened the 
Union cause in the border States and perhaps pre- 
vented their secession, and when in the fullness of 
time the President decided that slavery must per- 
ish to save the Union, he had behind him a support 
which he could not have commanded earlier, and 
without which his blow might have been futile. 

Sumner recognized the wisdom of not attacking 
slavery too soon, but he never believed that the 
Union and slavery could both be preserved. He 
had seen in slavery the root of all our trouble too 
long not to feel that the government should use 
every power to destroy it, and that no real union was 
possible until this was done. His never varying 
purpose from the moment when the Republicans 
came into power was to end slavery, and strike 
from the statute-book every recognition of its ex- 



EMANCIPATION 199 

istence, and every denial to colored men of their 
equal rights as citizens. He saw with the eye of a 
statesman that there could be only one real end 
to the conflict, and he sought that end with a di- 
rectness which more politic men could not imi- 
tate. He was a force constantly pushing for free- 
dom, and trying to carry his fellow countrymen 
with him. It was necessary, perhaps, that others 
should hold back, that the army might be kept to- 
gether, — that men might gradually outgrow the 
prejudices with which they began the struggle. 
The war was a process of education, and Sumner 
was a teacher constantly inculcating its lesson. 
Without him and those who shared his views 
progress would have been slower; without others it 
might have been less sure. 

The President and he were in thorough accord 
as to the end, but Sumner felt that the time to 
strike had arrived before the President was ready 
to act. He thought that foreign intervention, on 
which the Confederate leaders relied, would be 
made impossible by emancipation, since we should 
have the sympathy of Europe in a contest for 
freedom, while we should not have it in a con- 
test for empire. He believed also that there was 
no weapon so effective against the armies in the 
field. At the end of May, 1861, in conversation 
with the President he admitted that the time had 
not yet come, but he urged him to be ready for 
action at the first favorable moment. Two days 
after the defeat of Bull Run, when the news showed 



200 CHARLES SUMNER 

that the country was thoroughly aroused, he told 
the President that the time had come. The Presi- 
dent thought not, and recalling their earlier con- 
versation said : " Did you not then approve my 
course ? " " Certainly," was the reply, " at that 
time ; but I said also that you must be ready to 
strike at slavery, and now the moment has come. 
Of this I have no doubt." But though this was 
his private advice, he betrayed no impatience in 
public. 

Congress met in extra session on July 4, 1861, 
and Mr. Crittenden, now a member of the House, 
introduced a resolution to declare the object of the 
war, which was passed with only two opposing 
votes. Andrew Johnson introduced almost the 
same resolution in the Senate, and in it was this 
statement : " That this war is not prosecuted on our 
part in any spirit of oppression ; . . . nor for the 
purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the 
rights or established institutions of those States ; 
but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the 
Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof, 
and to preserve the Union." This general lan- 
guage was evidently intended to protect slavery 
and the Fugitive Slave Law, but it received the 
support of all the senators except Trumbull, who 
voted against it, and Sumner, who did not vote 
because, though opposed to the resolution, he was 
" unwilling to separate openly from political asso- 
ciates." For the same reason, in two bills which 
he introduced during this session for punishing 



EMANCIPATION 201 

treason and confiscating the property of traitors, 
he made no reference to slaves, though he used 
language broad enough to cover all property. 

There was some evidence during the session that 
Sumner's view was gaining ground in the passage 
by the House, on July 9, of a resolution " that it is 
no part of the duty of the soldiers of the United 
States to capture and return fugitive slaves," and 
the passage of a law that the slaves of rebels used 
by them for military purposes should be freed. 
Nevertheless, the policy of protecting slavery 
against the natural consequences of war still con- 
tinued, and the attitude of the President was made 
apparent by the various military orders above men- 
tioned. 

Sumner felt that it was not safe to delay until 
the course of the war had educated the country up 
to emancipation, and that something should be 
done to create a public opinion upon which the 
President could lean. His opportunity came in an 
invitation to address the State Republican Conven- 
tion of Massachusetts, and his speech on October 1, 
1861, was the first public demand for emancipation 
made by any responsible statesman. After dwell- 
ing on the suffering and disasters caused by the 
civil war, and pointing out that all these were 
borne to preserve slavery, he proceeded : — 

" It is often said that war will make an end of 
slavery. This is probable. But it is surer still 
that the overthrow of slavery will make an end of 
the war. 



202 CHARLES SUMNER 

" If I am correct in this averment, which I be- 
lieve beyond question, then do reason, justice, and 
policy unite, each and all, in declaring that the 
war must be brought to bear directly on the 
grand conspirator and omnipresent enemy. Not 
to do so is to take upon ourselves all the weak- 
ness of slavery, while we leave to the rebels its 
boasted resources of military strength. ... It is 
not necessary even, borrowing a familiar phrase, 
to carry the war into Africa. It will be enough if 
we carry Africa into the war." 

To sustain his position, he quoted John Quincy 
Adams, who always held that the government had 
power to destroy slavery in the event of war ; and 
having established the power to strike he said : " I 
calmly deliver the whole question to those on whom 
the responsibility rests, contenting myself with 
reminding you that there are times when not to act 
carries with it greater responsibility than to act. 
It is enough for us to review the unquestioned pow- 
ers of government, to handle for a moment its 
mighty weapons, yet allowed to slumber, without 
assuming to declare that the hour has come when 
they shall flash against the sky." In conclusion he 
recognized the duty of compensating loyal owners 
for their losses. Outside the convention and on 
both sides of the ocean opinion was sharply divided 
as to the wisdom of the speech. Conservatives re- 
garded it as unfortunate, and its author as im- 
practicable, perverse, and almost insane. They 
thought that it would divide the North, embarrass 



EMANCIPATION 203 

the administration, and render more difficult the 
prosecution of the war. On the other hand, it was 
warmly applauded by large numbers, including 
some of those very border state men, whose sen- 
sibilities the North was so anxious to consult. It 
stirred men's minds, and awakened in many a fresh 
enthusiasm, especially among the rank and file of 
the Republican party. 

Sumner followed it up by a more carefully 
prepared address, delivered during October and No- 
vember in various cities, and finally at the Cooper 
Institute in New York on November 27, 1861, 
where a singularly brilliant audience adopted by 
acclamation a resolution approving his position. 

His line of argument was essentially the same 
as in his speech to the Worcester convention, and 
the reasons for striking slavery directly were pre- 
sented with great force. He dwelt especially upon 
the fact that it was the labor of slaves at home 
which kept their masters in the field, saying, " Thus 
by singular fatality is this doomed race, without 
taking up arms, actually engaged in feeding, sup- 
porting, succoring, invigorating those battling for 
their enslavement." This speech, like the preced- 
ing, was attacked as unwise, but it did much to 
change public opinion. 

When the session of Congress opened, on De- 
cember 2, 1861, Sumner was in his seat. He 
found the President in sympathy with the policy 
which he had advocated, but not ready to act. 
" He tells me," wrote Sumner to Andrew, " that I 



204 CHAELES SUMNER 

am ahead of him only a month or six weeks." The 
President in his message suggested his favorite 
plan of colonization, but took no decided stand as 
to freeing the slaves of rebel owners. The ten- 
dency of his mind was indicated by his declaration : 
" The Union must be preserved, and hence all 
indispensable means must be employed ; " but his 
doubts found expression in the qualifying clause : 
" We should not be in haste to determine that radi- 
cal and extreme measures, which may reach the 
loyal as well as the disloyal, are indispensable." 
He was feeling his way, knowing the danger of 
hasty action, and in justification of his policy he 
was able to adduce the fact that from Maryland, 
Kentucky, and Missouri, which at first would not 
offer a soldier, at least forty thousand men were 
then in the Union army. 

Sumner at once addressed himself to the work 
of educating the people to demand emancipation. 
On December 4 he offered a resolution calling 
for General Halleck's orders in Missouri, which di- 
rected that fugitive slaves be not received within 
the lines, and that those already there should be 
expelled. In a brief speech he criticised these or- 
ders as " disheartening to our soldiers," " irrational 
and inhuman." There was some hesitancy on the 
part of our generals in regard to escaped slaves, 
and Sumner again spoke on the subject in May, 
urging the folly of protecting slavery while it was 
attempting to destroy the government. He fol- 
lowed his first speech by a resolution directing the 



EMANCIPATION 205 

committee on military affairs to consider the ex- 
pediency of legislation against the surrender of 
fugitive slaves by our armies. The subject re- 
ceived prompt attention in both Houses, and, after 
much discussion as to form, a bill was passed by 
the House adding a new article of war prohibiting 
the use of the United States forces for the return 
of fugitive slaves. This passed the Senate, and 
became a law on March 13, 1862. 

On December 4 he took advantage of a debate 
over the condition of the courts and prisons in the 
District of Columbia to suggest that the evils of 
which senators complained were due to the black 
code, and that the remedy was to be found in the 
abolition of slavery in the District. He had long 
urged the abolition of slavery wherever the United 
States had exclusive jurisdiction, but this was the 
first public word on the subject since the Republi- 
can party came into power. 

On December 16 his colleague, Mr. Wilson, 
introduced a bill to abolish slavery in the District 
of Columbia with compensation to loyal owners, 
which was amended by adding an appropriation of 
one hundred thousand dollars for colonizing in 
Hayti or Liberia slaves who desired to migrate. 
While this was pending in the Senate the Presi- 
dent sent for Mr. Sumner, and showed him the 
draft of a message recommending the following 
resolution : " That the United States ought to co- 
operate with any State which may adopt gradual 
abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecun- 



206 CHARLES SUMNER 

iary aid, to be used by such State, in its discretion, 
to compensate for the inconveniences, public and 
private, produced by such change of system." 
Sumner did not believe the plan practicable, but 
he welcomed the evidence of the President's ten- 
dency towards the course which he so strongly 
urged. He made some suggestions as to the lan- 
guage, which the President adopted, and the mes- 
sage was sent in. The resolution was passed, and 
soon afterwards the bill for compensated abolition 
in the District of Columbia came up for discus- 
sion. Sumner spoke in favor of the bill on March 
31, addressing himself especially to the doubt 
of anti-slavery men whether it was right to ac- 
knowledge property in man by paying the own- 
ers for their slaves. To many it seemed that the 
payment should be made to the slaves. Sumner 
urged compensation : first, because Congress had 
recognized and supported slavery in the District, 
thus making the whole country responsible for 
the wrong, and therefore properly chargeable with 
the expense of righting it ; second, because it 
was the most practical way of removing slavery. 
To meet the scruples of friends, he called the pay- 
ment ransom, and compared it with our payments 
to the Dey of Algiers. The speech was not espe- 
cially noteworthy ; for he was speaking to a body 
which agreed with him, and was only waiting for 
the end of the debate to pass the bill. This was 
done in the House on April 11, but the Presi- 
dent withheld his signature till the 15th. Sumner 



EMANCIPATION 207 

could not understand the delay, and called upon 
Mr. Lincoln to urge action. " Do you know," he 
said, "who at this moment is the largest slave- 
holder in this country ? It is Abraham Lincoln, 
for he holds all the three thousand slaves of the 
District, which is more than any other person in 
the country holds." 

The President, in a message approving the bill, 
explained his delay by pointing out that certain 
classes, such as minors, married women, and others, 
were not sufficiently protected by it, and suggested 
additional legislation, which was passed. He was, 
however, pleased that it recognized the two princi- 
ples of compensation and colonization. Thus was 
paid, in the words of Sumner, " a small installment 
of that great debt to an enslaved race which we all 
owe." 



CHAPTER Xin 

THE TRENT AFFAIR 

During this autumn occurred an event which 
gave Sumner the opportunity to render his coun- 
try perhaps the greatest single service of his life. 
The state of our foreign relations was far from 
satisfactory, and Mr. Seward had created the im- 
pression that he was hostile to England and not 
averse to war with that country. The people of 
the North had expected English sympathy, and 
were irritated by the hostile tone of many promi- 
nent Englishmen. The early recognition of bellig- 
erency by England and France had seemed un- 
friendly, and on both sides misunderstanding and 
ill feeling existed. The course of the war also had 
been unfavorable to the government. 

In this condition of affairs, on November 8, 1861, 
Captain Wilkes, in command of the United States 
ship San Jacinto, stopped the British mail steamer 
Trent on the high seas, while on a voyage from 
Havana to Nassau, and took from her Mason and 
Slidell, envoys from the Confederate States to Eng- 
land and France. The Trent was allowed to pro- 
ceed, while the prisoners were brought to the United 
States. This action of Captain Wilkes was received 



THE TRENT AFFAIR 209 

throughout the North with warm approval, perhaps 
the more cordial because Mason and Slidell had 
been especially arrogant and offensive champions 
of slavery. On November 30 the secretary of the 
Navy sent to Captain Wilkes the " emphatic ap- 
proval " of the department, and two days later the 
House of Representatives passed a joint resolution 
giving him the thanks of Congress. The press and 
leading men of all parties, like Edward Everett, 
Governor Andrew, Chief Justice Bigelow, and Caleb 
dishing in Massachusetts, united in applauding the 
act. 

Sumner was in Boston when the news came, and 
at once said, " We shall have to give them up." 
He went to Washington and found the President 
doubtful and anxious, but his Cabinet, except Post- 
master-General Blair, in sympathy with the feeling 
of the country. On November 30 Mr. Seward 
wrote to Mr. Adams that Captain Wilkes had acted 
without instructions, and expressed the desire of 
the government so to deal with the case as to avoid 
conflict. While waiting dispatches from the British 
government the administration did nothing to an- 
ticipate the discussion. The news of the capture 
reached London on the night of November 27. 
Earl Russell, after consulting the law officers of the 
Crown, sent a dispatch to Lord Lyons at Wash- 
ington on November 30, instructing him to de- 
mand the surrender of Mason and Slidell and a 
suitable apology. In a letter accompanying the 
dispatch, Earl Russell authorized Lord Lyons to 



210 CHARLES SUMNER 

permit a delay not exceeding seven days. If a 
favorable answer were not then given, he was in- 
structed to leave Washington with the whole lega- 
tion, and to repair immediately to London. At the 
same time preparations were made for war, troops 
were dispatched to Canada, and ships were hastily 
fitted for sea. The English press was bitter and 
Parliament was hostile. " Three fourths of the 
House of Commons," wrote Cobden, " will be glad 
to find an excuse for voting for the dismemberment 
of the great republic." The Southern press was 
jubilant, and the situation was critical in the ex- 
treme. 

Sumner exerted all his influence to promote a 
peaceful adjustment. He strongly urged that the 
envoys be given up, and showed the President that 
according to the doctrines always maintained by the 
United States the capture was unjustifiable. He in- 
sisted that England, on the other hand, in demand- 
ing their release abandoned claims on which she 
had always insisted, and it was thus in our power 
to win a diplomatic victory by surrendering the 
prisoners and accepting England's surrender of 
rights which she had always asserted, and we had 
as constantly denied. 

But the peremptory tone of the English demand 
and the strong feeling in this country made such a 
course very difficult, and for a time was doubtful 
what the answer would be. Sumner persistently 
urged his views on Mr. Lincoln, and on December 
25 he read to him and the Cabinet private letters 



THE TRENT AFFAIR 211 

from Cobden and Bright, which sustained him. 
Cobden wrote: "I am sure that the President 
and the people of the United States would be but 
too happy to let these men go free, unnatural and 
unpardonable as their offenses have been, if by it 
they could emancipate the commerce of the world. 
... If I were in the position of your govern- 
ment, I would act upon their traditional policy, 
and thus by a great strategic movement turn the 
flank of the European powers, especially of the 
governing classes of England. I would propose 
tt let Mason and Slidell go, and stipulate, at the 
same time, for a complete abandonment of the old 
code of maritime law as upheld by England and 
the European powers." 

Sumner's anxiety and his appreciation of the 
crisis appear in numerous letters. Thus he wrote 
to Dr. Lieber on December 24 : " War with Eng- 
land involves : (1.) Instant acknowledgment of 
rebel States by England, followed by France. (2.) 
Breaking of the present blockade with capture of 
our fleet. (3.) The blockade of our coast from 
Chesapeake to Eastport. (4.) The sponging of 
our ships from the ocean. (5.) The establishment 
of the independence of rebel States. (6.) Opening 
of these States by free trade to English manufac- 
turers, which would be introduced by contraband 
into our States, making the whole North American 
continent a manufacturing dependency of England. 
All this I have put to the President. . . . But my 
anxious desire is to associate with our decision 



212 CHARLES SUMNER 

about Mason and Slidell some triumph of our tra- 
ditional policy with regard to maritime rights." 
He labored with his English friends to prevent 
war. To Cobden he wrote December 31, 1861: 
" On reaching Washington for the opening of 
Congress I learned from the President and from 
Mr. Seward that neither had committed himself 
on the Trent affair, and that it was absolutely an 
unauthorized act. Seward told me that he was re- 
serving himself in order to see what view England 
would take. It would have been better to act on 
the case at once, and to make the surrender in con- 
formity with our best precedents ; but next to that 
was the course pursued. . . . The question was not 
touched in the Cabinet. It was also kept out of 
the Senate. . . . These circumstances will let you 
see how little there was of study or effort against 
England. . . . Telling the President a few days 
ago that it was now important to drive out from 
the British government their distrust of his admin- 
istration, and to plant confidence instead, he said 
at once with perfect simplicity, ' I never see Lord 
Lyons. If it were proper I should like to talk with 
him, that he might hear from my lips how much I 
desire peace. If we could talk together, he would 
believe me.' " 

In the same letter he says : — 

" Last evening, at a dinner by the secretary of 
war, where were Seward, Chase, and two or three 
senators, while we were seated the President en- 
tered and took a seat at the table. . . . The con- 



THE TRENT AFFAIR 213 

versation was much of it on the Trent case. 
Speaking of the course of England, Seward said 
he had no memory for injuries, and that in sur- 
rendering Mason and Slidell he did it in good faith, 
— laying up nothing for future account or recol- 
lection. I mention this conversation and the sur- 
rounding circumstances that you may know the 
inner sentiments of our Cabinet, and especially of 
the man who is most suspected by Englishmen. 
Seward may be careless or hasty ; he is not vindic- 
tive. The President is naturally and instinctively 
for peace, besides being slow to conclusions. He 
covets kindly relations with all the world, especially 
with England. I say this confidentially, for I 
have seen him almost daily and most intimately, 
ever since the Trent question has been under dis- 
cussion." 

He pressed upon both Bright and Cobden the 
idea that interference by England in behalf of 
slavery would be a crime against civilization, and 
pointed out clearly the danger that such conduct 
would leave behind it "an ineradicable, undying 
sting." 

Pending the settlement, Sumner was very anx- 
ious to prevent any discussion in Congress which 
would embarrass the administration. When the 
resolution of the House approving the action of 
Wilkes was sent to the Senate, he moved its refer- 
ence to the committee on foreign relations. But 
Hale of New Hampshire moved that it be sent to 
the committee on naval affairs, and to avoid de- 



214 CHARLES SUMNER 

bate Sumner yielded. On December 26, the last 
of the seven days allowed by Earl Russell, Senator 
Hale made an occasion in the Senate to assail vehe- 
mently the suggested surrender of national honor. 
Sumner spoke briefly in reply, urging that the mat- 
ter be left with the administration unembarrassed 
by any action in Congress. 

The administration decided to surrender the 
prisoners, and Mr. Seward, in announcing the de- 
cision, wrote that it was made " upon principles 
confessedly American." But he took the narrow 
ground that the error of Captain Wilkes lay in 
not seizing the Trent herself and bringing her be- 
fore a prize court for condemnation. This view 
was indeed sustained by the opinion of the Crown 
lawyers, but it was not sound. He added in his 
letter that, " if the safety of the Union required the 
detention of the captured persons, it would be the 
right and duty of this government to detain them," 
thus substantially asserting the right to disregard 
international law whenever it seemed expedient. 
This contention naturally was rejected by Earl 
Russell, and it was felt that the subject was left in 
an unsatisfactory position. The government was 
attacked for its course, and the country felt sore 
over what seemed a humiliation. 

The President sent to the Senate the correspond- 
ence relating to the Trent case, and Sumner moved 
its reference to his committee, making a speech on 
January 7, in which he stated fully the history of 
the case and discussed the principles involved, the 



THE TRENT AFFAIR 215 

historical precedents, and the position of the two 
governments. By this review he established his 
main proposition which he stated thus : — 

" The seizure of the rebel emissaries on board a 
neutral ship cannot be justified, according to de- 
clared American principles and practice. There 
is no single point where the seizure is not ques- 
tionable, unless we invoke British precedents and 
practice, which, beyond doubt, led Captain Wilkes 
into his mistake. ... In this surrender, if such it 
may be called, the national government does not 
even ' stoop to conquer.' It simply lifts itself to 
the height of its own original principles. The 
early efforts of its best negotiators, the patriot 
trials of its soldiers in an unequal war at length 
prevail, and Great Britain, usually so haughty, 
invites us to practice upon principles which she has 
so strenuously opposed. There are victories of 
force ; here is a victory of truth. If Great Brit- 
ain has gained the custody of two rebels, the 
United States have secured the triumph of their 
principles." 

This speech was generally approved by men of 
all parties on this side of the ocean. It smoothed 
ruffled sensibilities and turned apparent humilia- 
tion into triumph. It converted many who had 
defended the capture. It strengthened Sumner's 
personal influence greatly by letting men see that 
he was a conservative statesman, and an interna- 
tional lawyer in whose hands the foreign relations 
of the United States were safe. It also produced 



216 CHARLES SUMNER 

an excellent impression upon the continent. In 
England, however, the speech was regarded very 
differently. The " Times " gave it sneers and 
abuse, but did not print it, while Mr. William 
Vernon Harcourt, as " Historicus," thus concluded 
a vituperative article : — 

" Whether we turn to the puerile absurdities of 
President Lincoln's message, or to the confused 
and transparent sophistry of Mr. Seward's dis- 
patch, or to the feeble and illogical malice of Mr. 
Sumner's oration, we see nothing on every side but 
a melancholy spectacle of impotent violence and 
furious incapacity." 

More reasonable Englishmen received it in a 
very different spirit, and the wrath of " The Times" 
was taken as evidence that the speech was effective. 
The whole result was favorable to Sumner alike 
at home and abroad, and his speech gave him a 
position as an authority on international law, both 
in the Senate and in the country, which was never 
shaken. 



CHAPTER XIV 
THE END OF SLAVERY 

During the second session of the Thirty-seventh 
Congress, Sumner was constantly active. Recon- 
struction was hardly imminent, but feeling certain 
that the relations between the government and 
the seceded States should be settled, and foresee- 
ing that this could not be done without prolonged 
discussion, he offered on February 11, 1862, a 
series of resolutions with a view of bringing the 
difficulties to the attention of the country, and at 
the same time presenting his own solution after- 
wards known as the theory of " state suicide." The 
recitals which preceded the resolutions declared 
that the seceding States, " through their respective 
governments," had undertaken to renounce their 
allegiance to the United States and to levy war 
upon them ; that the territory " thus usurped by 
these pretended governments . . . belonged to the 
United States as an inseparable part thereof under 
the sanction of the Constitution, to be held in 
trust for the inhabitants in the present and future," 
and that the Constitution could not be displaced 
by any "pretended government." Upon these 
statements was based the proposition that the or- 



218 CHARLES SUMNER 

diuances of secession and other acts " by a State " 
hostile to the Constitution were void ; and, " when 
sustained by force," were " a practical abdication 
of all rights under the Constitution," while the 
treason involved worked " instant forfeiture of all 
functions and powers essential to the continued 
existence of the State as a body politic, so that 
from such time forward the territory falls under 
the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, as other ter- 
ritory, and the State becomes felo de se." 

From this were deduced as conclusions that the 
termination of the State ended all "peculiar local 
institutions," and that therefore slavery in the 
seceded States, being " without any origin in the 
Constitution or in natural right," must fall with 
the State whose creature it was ; that Congress 
must provide for the termination of slavery in fact 
throughout the whole seceded territory ; that as 
allegiance to the government and protection by it 
are corresponding obligations, the slaves were 
entitled to its protection ; and that Congress must 
" assume complete jurisdiction " of the " vacated 
territory," and proceed to establish therein gov- 
ernments republican in form with due regard to 
the equal rights of all the inhabitants. 

These resolutions were in aid of Sumner's fixed 
purpose that the war should end slavery, and sug- 
gested another way of accomplishing this object ; but 
such radical propositions naturally encountered bit- 
ter opposition. That the void acts of men assum- 
ing to be the government of a State were ineffec- 



THE END OF SLAVERY 219 

tual to displace the authority of the United States 
over the territory of the State, yet were effectual 
to terminate the legal existence of the State and 
to destroy rights of property created lawfully 
by the State and recognized by the Constitution, 
was a proposition open to destructive attack. Yet 
though the premises were unsound, the conclusion 
was ultimately adopted. Stripped of the argu- 
mentative propositions which were questionable, 
the resolutions declared the purpose of the United 
States to reconstruct the Union without slavery, 
and to establish in each of the seceded States a 
government which should be republican in reality. 
It was harder to justify this result on Sumner's 
theories of law than to sustain it by practical con- 
siderations of justice and expediency. 

Upon Sumner's motion the resolutions were laid 
upon the table, and were never taken up. His 
purpose was accomplished by presenting them. 
Leading Republicans like Fessenden, Sherman, 
and Dixon of Connecticut, hastened to declare 
dissent from his theories, and to make it clear that 
he spoke only for himself and not for the Repub- 
lican party, Sherman saying that " candid men 
must know that they [the resolutions] are but the 
emanation of a single individual, who has decided 
convictions on the subject and who is far in 
advance of any political organization in this coun- 
try." Yet Sumner was not without influential 
supporters, and it will be interesting hereafter to 
compare the final legislation of the Republican 



220 CHARLES SUMNER 

party on reconstruction with this early statement 
of his theory. 

His attention, however, was not confined to 
slavery. On February 13 he made an elaborate 
argument upon the proposition to make treasury 
notes a legal tender in payment of all debts, con- 
cluding that Congress had the power to do so, but 
expressing grave doubts as to the wisdom of exer- 
cising it. He found ample reason for these doubts 
in the history of previous experiments, and they 
have been justified fully by the results. 

Grave questions besides those growing out of the 
Trent case came before the committee on foreign 
relations. Prominent among them was that of 
our duty towards Mexico, then threatened with 
intervention by England, France, and Spain, for 
the alleged purpose of securing redress for their 
citizens who held bonds, upon which Mexico had 
suspended the payment of interest. The object 
of our diplomacy was to keep Mexico from fall- 
ing into hands likely to aid the Southern Confed- 
eracy, and also, in accordance with the Monroe 
Doctrine, to prevent the establishment on this con- 
tinent of a new foreign monarchy. Our minister 
to Mexico, Mr. Corwin, sent to Washington the 
project of a treaty by which the United States 
should lend Mexico a sum sufficient to meet the un- 
doubted claims of her creditors, taking as security 
mining property or other resources. The President 
submitted this to the Senate for its advice, and Mr. 
Sumner reported in favor of assuming the interest 



THE END OF SLAVERY 221 

on the Mexican debt for a limited time, and of 
paying certain claims, provided the allied powers 
would accept this and withdraw from Mexico ; and 
provided further that the advance should "be se- 
cured by such mortgage or pledge as is most prac- 
ticable without any territorial acquisition or dis- 
memberment of Mexico." Political leaders at this 
time were willing to help a neighboring nation and 
to preserve its freedom, but were careful that no 
portion, even of contiguous territory, should be 
taken in payment for this country's help. Our 
hands were too full, however, and the Senate de- 
clined to follow the committee. Instead, a reso- 
lution was adopted, " that it is not advisable to 
negotiate a treaty that will require the United 
States to assume any portion of the principal or 
interest of the debt of Mexico, or that will require 
the concurrence of European powers." The result 
was the tragedy of Maximilian. 

Through his committee Sumner was able also 
to serve the cause which he had most at heart. 
While slavery dominated the government the 
" colored republics," Hayti and Liberia, had never 
been accorded diplomatic recognition. As Mr. 
Benton put it : " The peace of eleven States in this 
Union will not permit the fruits of a successful 
negro insurrection to be exhibited among them." 
In his annual message of December, 1861, Presi- 
dent Lincoln stated that he saw no reason for 
longer withholding our recognition, and Mr. Sum- 
ner reported a bill, which was passed, authorizing 



222 CHARLES SUMNER 

the President to send diplomatic representatives. 
He supported it by a speech suggesting commer- 
cial and business considerations, but not alluding 
to the reason which had prevented earlier recogni- 
tion, or even to the fact that the population of 
the two countries was colored. Senator Davis of 
Kentucky moved an amendment, and attacked the 
policy of establishing diplomatic relations with 
negroes, excusing his opposition on the ground that 
such a step was distasteful to the people of the 
slave States. Sumner replied : — 

" I made no appeal on account of color. I did 
not allude to the unhappy circumstance in their 
history that they had once been slaves. It is the 
senator from Kentucky who introduces this topic. 
... In presenting this measure, I make no ap- 
peal on account of an oppressed race. I urge it 
simply as an act for our own good. . . . Thus far 
we have stood aloof from two important oppor- 
tunities of extending and strengthening our influ- 
ence. It is time to change." 

Though not presented to the Senate as a step in 
the contest with slavery, this measure was so re- 
garded in the country, as was abundantly shown by 
the letters which Sumner received from Governor 
Andrew and others. The people of Liberia and 
Hayti were especially grateful to him, and for this 
and his later service a medal was presented to 
him in the name of the Haytien people, which, 
however, he felt obliged to decline, and it is now in 
the State Library. 



THE END OF SLAVERY 223 

A more signal triumph was won when the treaty 
with England for the more effectual suppression 
of the slave trade, negotiated in the spring of 
1862 and signed in Sumner's presence, was rati- 
fied by the Senate without a dissenting voice. 
It was sent to the Senate on April 11 ; it was 
reported by Sumner on the 15th, and ratified on 
the 24th after a brief speech by him, in which 
he pointed out its especial features, the granting 
of a mutual and restricted right of search, and 
the establishment of mixed courts with authority 
to condemn ships. The President announced the 
ratification of the treaty on June 7, and on the 
13th Sumner reported a bill to carry it into effect, 
which was passed at once. The effect was im- 
mediate. The infamous traffic ceased when it was 
found that Great Britain and the United States 
were united and in earnest. No business ever came 
before the mixed courts, for no ship was ever cap- 
tured, and they were abolished by mutual consent 
in 1869. The promptitude with which Congress 
acted was largely due to Sumner, and he wasted 
no time in speech, though the occasion must have 
been tempting. 

In pursuance of his purpose to remove from the 
statute-book every discrimination on account of 
color, he introduced a bill to amend the law which 
provided " that no other than a free white person " 
should be employed to carry the mail. This law, 
passed in 1825, was first suggested in 1802 by the 
postmaster-general, who, speaking of the negroes, 



224 CHARLES SUMNER 

said : " Everything which tends to increase their 
knowledge of natural rights, of men and things, 
or that affords them an opportunity of associating, 
acquiring, and communicating sentiments, and of 
establishing a chain or line of intelligence, must 
increase your hazard because it increases their 
means of effecting their object. The most active 
and intelligent are employed as post-riders. These 
are the most ready to learn and the most able to 
execute. By traveling from day to day, and hourly 
mixing with people, they must, they will, acquire 
information. They will learn that a man's rights 
do not depend on his color. They will in time 
become teachers to their brethren. They become 
acquainted with each other on the line. When- 
ever the body, or a portion of them, wish to act, 
they are an organized corps, circulating our intel- 
ligence openly, their own privately." 

Sumner's bill provided that no person should be 
disqualified, by reason of color, to carry the mails. 
It passed the Senate without amendment or dis- 
pute, but was reported adversely by Mr. Colfax in 
the House, and was defeated on his motion, — a sin- 
gular fate for such a measure. Mr. Sumner again 
introduced it in the next Congress, and eventually 
it was passed. 

He proposed and carried legislation preventing 
the exclusion of witnesses in the District of Co- 
lumbia on account of color, and made repeated 
attempts to extend the same rule to the federal 
courts, but without success at this session. Only 



THE END OF SLAVERY 225 

thirteen other senators supported Sumner, but in 
this, as in many cases, his views soon prevailed. 

Unable to convince the President that imme- 
diate emancipation was wise, but sure that it was 
the most effective weapon against the Confederates, 
Sumner neglected no opportunity to urge measures 
tending to accomplish it. We see now that he 
grasped the situation with the instinct of a states- 
man ; but many of his associates were confused by 
legal and constitutional doubts as to the rights of 
slaveholders. It was a singular survival of the 
tenderness for slavery, which had been fostered by 
the Whig and Democratic parties during years of 
agitation. In May, 1862, Sumner attacked these 
scruples in a powerful speech delivered in support 
of an amendment to the confiscation bill. This 
proposed that any person, who after the passage of 
the act should engage in or abet the rebellion, 
should forfeit all claim to his slaves, and that these 
should thereafter be free ; further, that any claim- 
ant of a slave must establish his loyalty as a con- 
dition of recovery. Sumner dwelt upon the dis- 
tinction between a law intended to punish treason, 
which must be passed in the exercise of sovereignty 
and must not violate constitutional limitations, and 
a law exercising those rights of war which interna- 
tional law gives to every belligerent. It was a 
legal argument, founded on the decisions of courts, 
the principles laid down by recognized authorities, 
and the well-established practice of all nations. 
The common sense of his position is shown by the 



226 CHARLES SUMNER 

following extracts from his speeches made in the 
debate on this proposition : — 

" The rebel in arms is an enemy, and something 
more. ... In appealing to war, he has voluntarily 
renounced all safeguards of the Constitution, and 
put himself beyond its pale. . . . And yet, sir, the 
Constitution is cited as a limitation upon these 
rights. As well cite the Constitution on the field 
of battle to check the bayonet charge of our armies. 
. . . The Constitution is entirely inapplicable. 
Sacred and inviolable, the Constitution is made 
for friends who acknowledge it, and not for ene- 
mies. . . . 

" If it be constitutional to make war, to set 
armies in the field, to launch navies, to occupy 
fields and houses, to bombard cities, to kill in bat- 
tle, — all without trial by jury, or any process of 
law, or judicial proceeding of any kind, — it is 
equally constitutional, as a war measure, to confis- 
cate the property of the enemy and to liberate his 
slaves. . . . You may condemn confiscation and 
liberation as impolitic, but you cannot condemn 
them as unconstitutional unless, in the same breath, 
you condemn all other agencies of war, and resolve 
our present proceeding into the process of a crimi- 
nal court, guarded at each step by the technicali- 
ties of the common law. ... I confess frankly that 
I look with more hope and confidence to liberation 
than to confiscation. To give freedom is nobler 
than to take property, and on this occasion it can- 
not fail to be more efficacious." 



THE END OF SLAVERY 227 

Mr. Sumner's amendment, altered so as to affect 
only slaves coming actually under the control of the 
federal armies, became a part of the law as en- 
acted. It doubtless helped to familiarize the pub- 
lic with the idea of emancipation as a war measure. 

At this session Sumner voted against the bill 
to admit West Virginia, because the Senate refused 
to amend it by providing that, after July 4, 1863, 
slavery should cease in the State; though it in- 
serted the provision that slaves in the State on 
July 4, 1863, and under twenty-one years of age, 
should be free at certain ages. He successfully 
opposed a bill to establish temporary govern- 
ments in the seceded States because it provided 
that the laws and institutions which existed in 
each State at the time of its secession should not 
be interfered with. He pointed out that "insti- 
tutions " meant " slavery," and read some of the 
laws which would thus be enforced. By various 
resolutions from time to time he sought to prevent 
the surrender of fugitive slaves, and to make the 
public see how much the slaves could help us, and 
the importance of encouraging them to do so. 

At this time Sumner asserted the right of Con- 
gress to control reconstruction. The President 
had appointed Edward Stanly as military gov- 
ernor of North Carolina, with absolute power, 
including even the right to suspend the writ of 
habeas corpus. Stanly undertook to act despoti- 
cally and showed a disposition to protect slavery. 
Andrew Johnson was made governor of Tennessee, 



228 CHARLES SUMNER 

and it seemed probable that, if this policy were to be 
countenanced, the Executive would dictate the 
terms of reconstruction, at least so far as to tie the 
hands of Congress. Sumner, therefore, on June 6, 
1862, introduced a resolution reciting Stanly's 
acts, and asking the President to revoke the ap- 
pointment. A second resolution declared that such 
an appointment was without sanction in the Consti- 
tution and laws, and subordinated the civil to the 
military authority, " contrary to the spirit of our 
institutions and in derogation of the powers of 
Congress." This resolution, though never acted 
upon, accomplished its purpose, and no more 
military governors were appointed. 

Sumner also introduced a resolution : " That in 
the efforts now making for the restoration of the 
Union and the establishment of peace throughout 
the country, it is inexpedient that the names of 
victories obtained over our fellow citizens should 
be placed on the regimental colors of the United 
States." No action was taken upon it, and it pro- 
voked no noticeable opposition. On the contrary 
it was cordially approved by many, including 
General Winfield Scott, who afterwards said : 
" This was noble and from the right quarter." A 
very different reception was accorded later to a 
similar proposition. 

Sumner was constantly in his seat, and nothing 
escaped his attention. He opposed adjournment 
on July 16, because much important business de- 
manded attention. Unduly shortened as the ses- 



THE END OF SLAVERY 229 

sion seemed to him, yet Congress accomplished 
much upon which he looked back with profound 
satisfaction. He thus recapitulated its legislative 
achievements : " . . . Emancipation in the national 
capital ; freedom in all the national territories ; the 
offer of ransom to help emancipation in the States ; 
the recognition of Hayti and Liberia ; the treaty 
with Great Britain for the suppression of the slave 
trade ; the prohibition of the return of fugitive 
slaves by military officers ; homesteads for actual 
settlers on the public lands ; a Pacific railroad ; 
endowments of agricultural colleges out of the pub- 
lic lands ; — such are some of the achievements by 
which the present Congress is already historic. 
. . . Besides these measures of unmixed benefi- 
cence, the present Congress has created an immense 
army and a considerable navy, and has provided 
the means for all our gigantic expenditures by a 
tax which in itself is an epoch." 

No one had been more responsible for the ac- 
tions of Congress against slavery than had Sum- 
ner, and he might well rejoice in the record. 
Through it all he never lost sight of his great 
object nor neglected an opportunity to press eman- 
cipation on the President. He urged him to com- 
memorate the Fourth of July by proclaiming free- 
dom and calling the slaves to our assistance ; but 
Lincoln was not ready. Even after Congress ad- 
journed Sumner remained to press his views. 
Lincoln was more than six weeks behind him, 
though not very much more. On July 13 he 



230 CHARLES SUMNER 

said to Seward and Welles that emancipation was 
a military necessity, and on July 22 he submit- 
ted to his Cabinet the draft of a proclamation de- 
claring that slaves should be free on January 1, 
1863, in States then in rebellion. He waited for 
a victory, and then he acted. On September 22, 
five days after Antietam, the preliminary procla- 
mation of emancipation was issued, and the Re- 
publican party became, what Sumner had been de- 
nounced for trying to make it a year before, an 
emancipation party. To this result no one had 
contributed so much as he. The President was 
doubtless right in waiting, but that he was able to 
strike when he did was largely due to Sumner and 
those who, with him, had educated the people to 
approve the blow. 

Though Sumner sometimes differed with the 
President on questions of policy, and was impa- 
tient with his deliberation, they were in essential 
harmony, and Sumner never lost his confidence in 
Lincoln. His feelings appear clearly in private 
letters written early in June, 1862, from which 
some passages may be quoted : — 

" Your criticism of the President is hasty. I am 
confident, if you knew him as I do, you would not 
make it. Could you — as has been my privilege 
often — have seen the President while considering 
the great questions on which he has already acted, 
. . . even your zeal would be satisfied ; for you 
would feel the sincerity of his purpose to do what 
he can to carry forward the principles of the Decla- 
ration of Independence." 



THE END OF SLAVERY 231 

In the interest of harmony he urged the passage 
of a resolution construing the confiscation bill so as 
to limit the forfeiture of real estate to the life of 
the offender. This was introduced while the bill 
was in the President's hands, to meet certain doubts 
on his part. Without sharing these doubts Sum- 
ner was willing to adopt the President's view in 
order that the bill might be signed. 

During this session Sumner was the most con- 
spicuous senator. He was in full vigor of mind 
and body, and there was no one among his asso- 
ciates who had been so prominent as he in the con- 
test which had ended in the rebellion. He was the 
recognized political leader of those who sought the 
destruction of slavery through the war. An Eng- 
lish traveler thus described him : " That great, 
sturdy, English-looking figure, with the broad, 
massive forehead, over which the rich mass of nut- 
brown hair, streaked here and there with a line of 
gray, hangs loosely ; with the deep blue eyes and 
the strangely winning smile, half bright, half full 
of sadness. He is a man whom you would notice 
amongst other men, and whom, not knowing, you 
would turn round and look at as he passed by you. 
... A child would ask him the time in the streets, 
and a woman would come to him unbidden for pro- 
tection.'* Judge Hoar described "his commanding 
presence, his stalwart frame (six feet and four 
inches in height), the vigor and grace of his mo- 
tions, the charm of his manners, the polish of his 
rhetoric, the abundance of his learning, the fervor 



232 CHARLES SUMNER 

and impressiveness of his oratory ; " and said, 
" he was every inch a senator." 

Yet it was a question whether he would again 
be sent to the Senate. His second term expired on 
March 4, 1863, and the autumn campaign of 1862 
in Massachusetts was especially important on this 
account. The reasons for his reelection may be 
taken from the answer of John Bigelow to one of 
Sumner's critics : — 

" First, he was the most accomplished man in 
public life in America ; second, the ablest senator 
in Congress ; third, of unblemished private char- 
acter; fourth, of unblemished public character, 
which no breath of calumny had ever reached, and 
whom no one had ever dared to approach with a 
dishonorable proposition ; fifth, a man whose zeal 
and talents had been expended, not upon selfish 
schemes, but upon measures and policies looking 
to the improvement of the condition of society — 
such ends as, whatever difference of opinion may 
prevail as to the adaptation of his means to secure 
them, must possess the sympathy and respect of 
all good citizens ; sixth, he is very amiable ; and 
seventh, a man whose decorum of character and 
whose talents have done and are doing more than 
those of any other man in the Senate to avert the 
gradual decline of that body in the estimation of 
the country." 

Against such arguments his opponents urged his 
radical views on slavery, and his determination to 
force a policy of emancipation ; that he was so 



THE END OF SLAVERY 233 

absorbed in this that he could not give the neces- 
sary attention to the other interests of his con- 
stituents; that his relations with the President 
were not sufficiently cordial, and that he embar- 
rassed the administration. It was a period of re- 
action and depression all over the country. Some 
of Sumner's friends had grown conservative, and 
were inclined to the opposition, which actually re- 
ceived the powerful support of the "Springfield 
Republican." But the suggestion that his reelec- 
tion was in doubt aroused to enthusiastic action 
the moral forces of Massachusetts. Ministers, 
teachers, editors, anti-slavery veterans, all over the 
State, rallied to his support. His life had given 
him a hold upon his constituents not easily shaken, 
and the attempt to unseat him was defeated as 
soon as it was known. His friends in the Republi- 
can convention were resolved that the party should 
be committed to his support, and a complimen- 
tary resolution nominating him for reelection was 
adopted with enthusiasm. The Emancipation Pro- 
clamation of September 22, issued some two weeks 
later, completely answered the suggestion that 
Sumner's policy of emancipation was not approved 
by the President. The administration had taken 
his advice and was thus his strongest supporter. 
To vote against him on this ground was to vote 
against Lincoln. 

In the campaign Sumner made several speeches, 
in which he planted himself upon the proclamation 
and urged his constituents to support the policy of 



234 CHARLES SUMNER 

the government as both necessary and right. He 
referred briefly to the charges against himself, say- 
ing : — 

" There are two accusations, ... to which I re- 
ply on the spot ; and I do so with less hesitation 
because the topics are germane to this debate. 
The first is, that from my place in the Senate I 
early proclaimed slavery to be barbarism. Never 
shall the cause of freedom go by default if I can 
help it ; and I rejoice that, on that occasion, in 
presence of the slaveholding conspirators vaunting 
the ennobling character of slavery, I used no soft 
words. . . . Was I not right ? 

"The other accusation is similar in character. 
It is said that I have too often introduced the slav- 
ery question. At this moment, seeing what slavery 
has done, I doubt if you will not rather say that I 
have introduced it too seldom. . . . The slave is 
the humblest and the grandest figure of our times. 
... In his presence all other questions are so 
petty that for a public man to be wrong with re- 
gard to him is to be wholly wrong. How, then, 
did I err ? The cause would have justified a better 
pertinacity than I can boast." 

Phillips, Whittier, Greeley, all the anti-slavery 
leaders came to his support, and while other States 
deserted the Republican party, Massachusetts stood 
firm, and reelected him by an overwhelming major- 
ity in both houses of the legislature. He returned 
to the Senate with increased influence, to complete 
the work which he had carried on so long and well. 



CHAPTER XV 

THE CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 

The second session of the Thirty-seventh Con- 
gress began in December, 1862, and ended March 
3, 1863. It was a period of anxious waiting. 
The death of slavery had been decreed by the 
Emancipation Proclamation, but it remained to exe- 
cute the decree. The United States was to be free 
in fact as in name, but it was still doubtful what 
would constitute the United States. It was indeed 
true that the year just closing had seen a distinct 
advance of the Union arms. The border States 
had been saved ; the Mississippi, at its mouth and 
for the larger part of its course, had been brought 
under the control of the government, and with it 
the largest part of Tennessee. The desperate bat- 
tle of Stone River had destroyed the Cod federate 
hope of recovering Kentucky. An invasion of 
Maryland had ended in disaster to the invaders, 
and important points had been won upon the coast. 
The area of the rebellion was materially reduced, 
and its resources were greatly impaired. On the 
other hand, however, the year ended ingloriously 
with the defeat at Fredericksburg. The main army 
of the Confederates under Lee still menaced Wash- 



236 CHARLES SUMNER 

ington, while Grant was besieging Vicksburg with 
doubtful prospect. Our enemies in England and 
France took courage and threatened intervention. 
Cruisers, fitted out in England, were destroying 
our commerce. The elections had indicated dis- 
satisfaction at home, and the falling off in volun- 
tary enlistments had compelled the resort to con- 
scription. The Republican senators asked the 
dismissal of Mr. Seward, on the ground that he 
lacked earnest convictions, and that his influence in 
the councils of the administration was unfortunate. 
Both Seward and Chase offered their resignations, 
and though Mr. Lincoln refused to accept them, 
the discussion left bitter feeling behind, and to 
our other difficulties was added this lack of har- 
mony among Republican leaders. It was for a 
statesman, in this time of doubt and despondency, 
to sustain the courage of his countrymen, to keep 
Congress and the Executive united in a vigorous 
prosecution of the war, and to prevent any back- 
ward steps. Sumner never shared the prevailing 
discouragement. To him it was morally impos- 
sible that a war waged to establish human slavery 
could succeed, and he did his part in persistently 
urging on the work. 

It is not surprising that in these circumstances, 
and after the great legislative activity of the pre- 
ceding session, the last session of the Thirty- 
seventh Congress was uneventful. Its work lay 
rather in prevention than in action. Sumner's 
action may be stated in a few words. His first reso- 



CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 237 

lution was in favor of establishing a hospital and am- 
bulance corps. He moved to amend a bill regulat- 
ing the appointment of midshipmen, by providing 
that candidates should be selected " on the ground 
of merit and qualification, to be ascertained by an 
examination " under regulations to be prescribed 
by the secretary of the navy. The spoils system 
was then too well intrenched, and his amendment 
commanded only six votes. He introduced a bill 
for enlisting all negroes freed by the confiscation 
act or any other lawful authority " exercised in 
suppressing the present rebellion," also for re- 
ceiving colored volunteers, but the bill was not 
reported, and fell with the session. By a resolu- 
tion offered in May, 1862, he had urged the enlist- 
ment of colored men, and in July of that year laws 
had been passed which authorized their employ- 
ment in the army and navy. His present bill went 
a step further, but the policy of using the negroes 
was now fully adopted by the Executive. 

At the recommendation of the President the 
House of Representatives passed a bill to aid Mis- 
souri in abolishing slavery by a gift of ten mil- 
lion dollars in bonds, to be used in compensating 
the owners. The senate committee on the judici- 
ary amended by providing for " gradual or imme- 
diate emancipation," offering twenty millions if 
there was " full and perfect manumission " before 
July 4, 1865, and half as much if it was at a later 
day before July 4, 1876. Sumner opposed gradual 
emancipation, both because the expenditure could 



238 CHARLES SUMNER 

only be justified as a war measure, and it was 
absurd to order a blow at the enemy to be deliv- 
ered ten or twenty years later, and because slavery 
was an evil of such a character that it should 
not be permitted to exist for any period. He con- 
sidered it a new compromise, and after pointing 
out the disastrous consequences of former compro- 
mises, used words of more than temporary appli- 
cation : " Alas, that men should forget that God 
is bound by no compromise, and that sooner or 
later He will insist that justice shall be done." 
In those days of procrastination his words struck a 
different note : " What is done in war must be 
done promptly, except perhaps under the policy of 
defense. ... If you would be triumphant, strike 
quickly, let your blows be felt at once, without 
notice or premonition, especially without time for 
resistance or debate. Time deserts all who do not 
appreciate its value. Strike promptly, and time 
becomes your invaluable ally. Strike slowly, 
gradually, prospectively, and time goes over to 
the enemy." 

The greatest danger of the moment was the 
danger of foreign intervention, and while pressing 
action against the enemy, Sumner was solicitous 
to prevent anything which might precipitate this 
calamity. His associates were not all equally 
conservative. On January 19, 1863, Senator 
McDougall of California introduced resolutions 
condemning the intervention of the French in 
Mexico, describing it as " an act not merely un- 



CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 239 

friendly to this republic, but to free institutions 
everywhere, and . . . regarded by this republic as 
not only unfriendly, but as hostile ; " and declaring 
it our duty to require the immediate withdrawal of 
the French forces, and to aid Mexico in resisting 
them. On February 3 he moved to take them 
up, and Sumner opposed, saying that if the reso- 
lutions " mean anything, they mean war," and ask- 
ing : " Have we not war enough already on our 
hands without needlessly and wantonly provoking 
another ? " 

The Senate took up the resolutions that Mc- 
Dougall might have an opportunity to speak, and 
Sumner replied that the way to drive the French 
from Mexico and to prevent any other attempt by 
foreign nations on this hemisphere was to crush 
the rebellion ; " after which," he said, " this whole 
continent will fall naturally, peacefully, and tran- 
quilly under the irresistible influence of American 
institutions." The Senate followed his lead and 
tabled the resolutions. 

The sharpest struggle during this session arose 
over a proposition to issue letters of marque. Sew- 
ard had favored this early in the war, and a bill 
to authorize it in this and in any future war was 
reported from the committee on naval affairs. 
It came up in February, 1863, and Mr. Grimes, 
the chairman, supported it. Sumner opposed it 
pertinaciously in a series of direct and simple 
speeches. He pointed out that privateers were 
vessels employed to prey upon the commerce of an 



240 CHARLES SUMNER 

enemy, and that the Confederacy had no commerce. 
He contended that if more ships were needed they 
should be made a part of the navy, for the reason 
that every privateer is entitled to the right of 
search, saying : " By virtue of this right, he and 
every licensed sea rover is entitled on the ocean to 
stop and overhaul all merchant vessels under what- 
ever flag. If he cannot capture, he can at least 
annoy. . . . Every exercise upon neutral commerce 
of this terrible right of search will be the fruitful 
occasion of misunderstanding, bickering, and con- 
troversy at a moment when, if my voice could pre- 
vail, there should be nothing to interfere with that 
accord, harmony, and sympathy which are due from 
civilized states to our republic in its great battle 
with barbarism. . . . 

" The speaking trumpet of a reckless privateer 
may contribute to that discord which is the herald 
of bloodshed itself." 

Failing to defeat the bill he tried to modify it, 
but in vain. The bill, limited to three years, be- 
came a law, and Mr. Seward at once sought to have 
it carried into effect. Mr. Sumner, however, was 
so convinced that it was futile against the Confed- 
eracy, and effective only to embroil us with foreign 
nations, that he remained in Washington and used 
all his influence to prevent action under it. He 
pressed his views upon the President, and showed 
him confirmatory letters from John Bright and 
Joshua Bates, the well known American banker in 
London. He wrote a letter for publication, reiter- 



CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 241 

ating his objections. Mr. Adams, from England, 
opposed the step, and the Cabinet was divided, Mr. 
Welles agreeing with Sumner, while Chase sup- 
ported Seward. Eventually Sumner prevailed, and 
no letters of marque were issued. The struggle 
excited much attention in England, and Mr. Bates 
wrote afterward : "lam convinced that their issue 
would have led to a war, and would have given 
those who in this country wish for war an oppor- 
tunity through the press to make a war popular. 
... It is the last card the Confederates have to 
play." This judgment of an able witness may 
help to show the value of Sumner's service to his 
country in this matter. 

On the other hand, while anxious not to provoke 
war, he desired equally to avoid inviting it by an 
appearance of fear. Offers of mediation had been 
made by Russia in 1861, and in 1862 the French 
Emperor tried to secure the cooperation of Russia 
and England in obtaining a suspension of hostili- 
ties for six months or longer. Failing in this, he 
tendered his good offices to facilitate negotiations, 
but his offer was declined. In England, interven- 
tion in various forms was from time to time sug- 
gested in the press and in Parliament. In conse- 
quence of all this, on February 28, 1863, Sumner 
reported a series of resolutions drawn by him. 
These recited the offer of the Emperor and the 
danger that " the idea of mediation or intervention 
in some shape may be regarded by foreign govern- 
ments as practicable," and then declared that " any 



242 CHARLES SUMNER 

further proposition from a foreign power, intended 
to arrest the efforts of the United States to crush 
the rebellion, was calculated to prolong and embit- 
ter the conflict," and would be regarded by Con- 
gress as " an unfriendly act." 

The resolutions were passed promptly, and, being 
communicated through our ministers to foreign 
governments, did much to end a course of action 
which had excited the hopes of the Confederate 
States, and had created irritations which might at 
any time have led to war with new enemies. It 
was a bold and dignified step which was justified 
by the event. 

After the Senate adjourned Sumner remained in 
Washington till July. Though the Emancipation 
Proclamation had aroused the anti-slavery senti- 
ment in England and had led to manifestations 
of sympathy with the North, our relations with 
England and France were never more critical than 
between March and October, 1863. Influential 
Englishmen like Gladstone openly declared that 
the South would succeed, and so thought many of 
Sumner's closest personal friends. The tone of 
Earl Russell was most irritating; the escape of 
the Alabama and Florida, the building and equip- 
ping of ships of war for Confederate use in Eng- 
lish shipyards, and the depredations of the priva- 
teers created intense feeling in this country, well 
expressed in Lowell's " Jonathan to John." The 
climax was reached when, in September, Earl Rus- 
sell at first refused to stop the Confederate iron- 



CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 243 

clads, nearly ready at Birkenhead, and Mr. Adams 
sent his famous note, in which he said : " This is 
war." 

During this period Sumner constantly corre- 
sponded with his English friends, impressing them 
with the fixed resolution of the North to restore 
the Union, no matter at what cost of civil or foreign 
war ; insisting that England could not, upon moral 
grounds, throw her weight for slavery, and in every 
way endeavoring to prevent war. In Washington 
he was in constant consultation with the President 
and Seward, in touch with each difficulty as it 
arose, and while his efforts were not known to the 
public they were of the greatest value. 

Some extracts from his correspondence will show 
the nature of his labors, and his unfailing confi- 
dence during the darkest hours. 

To Cobden, on March 16, 1863 : — 

" I am anxious, very anxious, on account of the 
ships building in England to cruise against our 
commerce. Cannot something be done to stop 
them ? Our people are becoming more and more 
excited, and there are many who insist upon war. 
A very important person said to me yesterday : ' We 
are now at war with England, but the hostilities 
are all on her side.' . . . To-day the Cabinet con- 
sider whether to issue letters of marque under the 
new statute. I have seen the President twice upon 
this question, which I regard as grave, for it is 
intended as a counter movement to what is done 
in England. ... I found myself powerless against 



244 CHARLES SUMNER 

it in the Senate, for there was a * war fever,' and 
you know how irresistible and diabolical that be- 
comes." 

To the Duchess of Argyll, on April 13 : — 

" Let me say frankly and most kindly where I 
think England has erred. It is twice. First, she 
declared neutrality between the two parties, — 
fatal mistake, from which Lord Russell's speech is 
the beginning of extrication. There can be no 
just neutrality between the two parties. . . . Such 
a government, founded on such a pretension, seek- 
ing admission into the fellowship of Christian 
States, should have been told at the beginning that 
there was no place for it. . . . The next mistake 
of England is that, having declared neutrality, she 
has not been true to it. I do not allude now to 
the ships, though to us that case is flagrant ; but 
I allude to the declarations of at least two of her 
ministers, made long ago, that separation was inev- 
itable. The direct tendency of their declarations 
was twofold : first, to encourage the slavemongers, 
and to give hope and confidence to slavery wher- 
ever it was ; and, secondly, by an infirmity of 
human nature, to bind these ministers, who had 
thus made themselves prophets, to desire the verifi- 
cation of their prophecy." 

Again, on April 21 : — 

" It has seemed to us an obvious duty of the 
English government to take the responsibility of 
enforcing its own statute of neutrality, which is lit- 
tle more than the requirement of international law, 



CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 245 

and that it was enough for us to direct attention to 
the reported fact. Some of our Cabinet were so 
strongly of this opinion that they were unwilling 
that our minister or agents should take any further 
steps, ... it being generally understood that the 
sailing of the ships would be a declaration of war. 
I insisted most earnestly that, while I did not 
differ from others as to the obvious duty of the 
English government, yet, as it had become a ques- 
tion of peace or war, I would not stand upon any 
form ; that I would employ agents, attorneys, and 
counsel ; institute law proceedings, — do all that 
we thought the British government ought to do, so 
far as we might be able to do, whether in courts 
or out of courts. The President at last adopted 
this view, and Mr. Evarts, who is a very eminent 
lawyer, without a superior in the country, has been 
dispatched to do all that he can, in consultation if 
possible with your law officers or with others, to 
arrest the guilty vessels." 

To Bright, on July 21 : — 

" I have read the debate of the 30th of June. 
. . . My friend Mr. Gladstone dealt with the 
whole question as if there were no God. English- 
men may doubt. I tell you, there can be but one 
end to this war. I care not for any temporary 
success of the slavemongers, they must fail ; but 
English sympathy is a mighty encouragement. . . . 
We are too victorious ; I fear more from our vic- 
tories than our defeats. If the rebellion should 
suddenly collapse, Democrats, Copperheads, and 



246 CHARLES SUMNER 

Seward would insist upon amnesty and the Union, 
and ' no question asked about slavery.' God save 
us from any such calamity." 

Again, on August 4 : — 

" There are two things which make me anxious. 
First, I fear that devil of compromise. I do not 
think the danger is great, but any such danger is 
terrible. The longer our triumph is postponed, the 
more impossible this becomes. Our present policy 
is, therefore, (1) two hundred thousand negroes 
under arms ; (2) the admission of a Gulf State 
with an altered constitution abolishing slavery ; . . . 
(3) to insist that there can be no talk of admission 
into the Union except on the basis of the actual 
condition at the moment, with slavery abolished by 
the Proclamation. 

" The second cause of anxiety is in our relations 
with England. Your government recklessly and 
heartlessly seems bent on war. You know how the 
Democracy, which it now courts, will turn and rend 
it, while the Irish have at last their long-sought 
opportunity. A leading merchant said to me this 
morning that he would give fifty thousand dollars 
for a war between England and Russia, that he 
might turn English doctrines against England. 
The feeling is very bitter." 

To Cobden, on September 4 : — 

" I do not differ from you when you say that you 
never would have counseled a war for emancipa- 
tion. Nor I ; indeed, I have done nothing but ac- 
cept the conditions imposed by the other side. Of 



CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 247 

course, I would not surrender to slavery. There 
was a moment when, perhaps, it was possible to let 
the States go ; but I doubt. Since then the thing 
has been morally impossible ; the war must be 
fought out. This is sad enough to me ! It costs 
me a pang to give up early visions, and to see my 
country filled with armies, while the military spirit 
prevails everywhere. Everywhere soldiers come 
forward for offices of all kinds, from the presidency 
to the post of constable ; and this will be the case 
from this time during my life." 

To Bright, on October 6 : — 

"At this moment I am more solicitous about 
France and England than about our military 
affairs. In the latter there is a temporary check, 
and you know I said long ago that I was prepared 
for further disaster ; but this can only delay, not 
change the result. Foreign intervention will in- 
troduce a new, vast, and incalculable element ; it 
would probably provoke a universal war. You will 
observe the hobnobbing at New York with the Kus- 
sian admiral. Why is that fleet gathered there ? 
My theory is that when it left the Baltic war with 
France was regarded as quite possible, and it was 
determined not to be sealed up at Cronstadt ; if at 
New York, they could take the French expedition 
at Vera Cruz." 

The replies of Bright and Cobden kept Sumner 
advised of English feeling and English difficulties, 
and they were at once shown to the President. 
This familiar and frank correspondence helped our 



248 CHARLES SUMNER 

government and strengthened the hands of those 
Englishmen who favored the North, of whom from 
first to last John Bright was the bravest and most 
unfaltering. He never deserted nor doubted the 
success of the government, 

Sumner felt that the position of the United 
States should be stated so that the people of Eng- 
land and France might understand our feelings and 
the dangers of the situation, and that the Amer- 
ican people might be instructed as to their rights. 
He therefore prepared a speech during the spring 
and summer, which he delivered in New York on 
September 10, at the very crisis of our troubles 
with England. It was a long oration, with the faults 
of Sumner's elaborate addresses, and we miss the 
spontaneity and directness of his letters. There 
are passages which seem intemperate ; but, coming 
from Sumner, the indignation which they expressed 
made the greater impression in England. None 
the less, it was a strong statement of the American 
case. 

He enumerated the unfriendly acts of England, 
dwelling first on the proclamation of neutrality, 
" foremost in time, foremost also in the magnitude 
of its consequences ; " issued with indecent haste, 
it gave the Southern cruisers equal rights with our 
own on the seas and in British ports, and enabled 
Englishmen to sell munitions of war to the Con- 
federates. He alluded next to the captious tone of 
England when the Trent was stopped, when ships 
were sunk at the entrance of Charleston harbor, 



CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 249 

and on other occasions, when she complained of 
action justified by her own precedents. 

He spoke of unfriendly speeches in Parliament, 
and of official declarations by members of the 
Cabinet, quoting the statement that our war was 
"a contest for empire on one side and for inde- 
pendence on the other ; " and he dwelt upon their 
constant prophecies of disaster and the assertion 
that Jefferson Davis had " created a nation." 

Passing to acts, he said : " I am sorry to add that 
there are acts, also, with which the British gov- 
ernment is too closely associated. I do not refer 
to the unlimited supply of ' munitions of war,' so 
that our army everywhere, whether at Vicksburg 
or Charleston, is compelled to encounter Arm- 
strong guns and Blakely guns, with all proper 
ammunition, from England. . . . Nor do I refer 
to the swarms of swift steamers, always under the 
British flag, with contributions to rebel slavery. 
... Of course no royal proclamation can change 
wrong into right, or make such business other- 
wise than immoral; but the proclamation may 
take from it the character of felony. 

" Even the royal manifesto gives no sanction to 
the fitting out in England of a naval expedition 
against the commerce of the United States. And 
yet . . . powerful ships are launched, equipped, fitted 
out, and manned in England, with arms supplied 
at sea from another English vessel, and then . . . 
proceed at once to rob and destroy the commerce of 
the United States. England is the naval base 



250 CHARLES SUMNER 

from which are derived the original forces and sup- 
plies enabling them to sail the sea. ... Of these 
incendiaries, the most famous is the Alabama, with 
a picked crew of British seamen, with 'trained 
gunners out of Her Majesty's naval reserve,' all, 
like those of Queen Elizabeth, described as ' good 
sailors and better pirates,' and with everything 
else from keel to truck British, which, after more 
than a year of unlawful havoc, is still firing the 
property of our citizens, without once entering a 
rebel slavemonger port, . . . and never losing the 
original nationality stamped upon her by origin. 
... It is difficult to see how the British govern- 
ment can avoid the consequences of complicity with 
the pirate ships in all their lawless devastation. I 
forbear to dwell on all the accumulating liability, 
amounting already to millions of dollars, with ac- 
cumulating exasperation also." 

Thus early was England warned of the Alabama 
claims. 

Passing from England to France, he stated our 
grievances against Louis Napoleon, dwelling on the 
invasion of Mexico, and on the Emperor's attempt 
to procure a joint mediation in our affairs with 
" an armistice for six months, during which every 
act of war, direct or indirect, should provisionally 
cease." Of this he said : " Any such offer, what- 
ever its motive, must be an encouragement to the 
rebellion ; " and he spoke of the Emperor thus : 
" Trampler upon the republic in France, trampler 
upon the republic in Mexico, it remains to be seen 



CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 251 

if the French Emperor can prevail as trampler 
upon this republic." 

Having framed his indictment, he proceeded to 
discuss the rights of intervention and mediation, 
prefacing his argument by a significant warning : — 

" Nations are equal in the eye of international law, 
so that what is right for one is right for all. . . . 
Therefore, should our cases be reversed, there is 
nothing England and France now propose, or may 
hereafter propose, which it will not be our equal 
right to propose when Ireland or India once more 
rebels, or when France is in the throes of its next 
revolution. . . . We may reject the precedents 
they furnish ; but it will be difficult for them to 
complain if we follow their steps." 

He reviewed at great length the subject of in- 
tervention, quoting Canning's statement that the 
" British government disclaimed for itself, and de- 
nied for other powers, the right of requiring any 
changes in the internal institutions of independent 
states with the menace of hostile attack in case of 
refusal ; " and that " a menace of direct and immi- 
nent danger could alone, in exception to the gen- 
eral rule, justify foreign interference." 

Dilating on England's long " intervention against 
slavery," he asked : " And can it be that now . . . 
a rebellion inspired by slavery turns to England 
with hope ? " He discussed the law of recognition 
and the precedents, showing how impossible it 
would be to recognize the Southern Confederacy 
" when, in fact, nothing is established, nothing 



252 CHARLES SUMNER 

untroubled, nothing secure, not even a single bound- 
ary line, . . . when, in fact, the conflict is still 
waged on numerous battlefields, and these pretend- 
ers to independence have been driven from State 
to State, driven away from the Mississippi which 
parts them, driven back from the sea which sur- 
rounds them, and shut up in the interior or in 
blockaded ports, so that only by stealth can they 
communicate with the outward world." 

In conclusion he dwelt upon the fact that the 
new confederacy was founded to maintain slavery, 
and enforced by a wealth of quotation and argu- 
ment his contention that no civilized nation, and 
England least of all, could help to establish such a 
government. 

At home the speech was received with the warm- 
est approval by press and public, and by leaders 
like Seward and Chase. In England it excited 
much indignation, and was criticised as unjust and 
unduly bitter. None the less it commanded atten- 
tion, and made England appreciate as never before 
the real feeling of the United States and the grav- 
ity of the situation. From this time foreign pow- 
ers gave us no serious anxiety, and their attitude 
was doubtless due in part to the enlightenment 
conveyed by this speech, reenforced by the success 
of our arms. The Argylls, Cobden, and others of 
Sumner's friends regretted the speech, and Cobden 
wrote : — 

" I was, I confess, rather beset with the feeling 
of cui bono after reading your powerful indictments 



CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 253 

against England and France together; it should 
have been your policy to have kept them asunder." 

Sunnier answered thus : — 

" Not for controversy, but for statement, I reply 
to your cui bono : (1.) As regards my own coun- 
try. People here had a right to expect from me a 
statement of the case. There was a feverish and 
indignant feeling against Great Britain, without 
much knowledge. The facts which I set forth, 
none of which can be questioned, are now accepted 
as an exhibition of what your government has done. 
The effect has been excellent ; for the people now 
understand the points in discussion. Instead of 
exciting them, I think that speech allayed existing 
excitement, followed as it was by a change in Eng- 
land. (2.) As regards England. It was important 
that your government and people should know how 
those in our country most friendly felt with re- 
gard to their conduct. For months we have done 
all that could be done, and Lord Russell down to 
the 9th of September (I spoke on the 10th of Sep- 
tember) gave no hint that we should not have war. 
. . . For weeks before I spoke bankers and lead- 
ing business men had revealed to me their anxie- 
ties, and the agent of a great English house had 
told me he could not venture to open credits. It 
was time that something was said openly and 
plainly. I knew too well the prejudices of coun- 
try and of party not to see that such an exposition 
would draw down upon me abuse and misrepresen- 
tation. But it seemed clearly my duty, and I am 



254 CHARLES SUMNER 

glad I did it. I know England well, and I know 
my own country; being somewhat behind the 
scenes, too, I felt that I could judge what was 
needed, not to soothe for the moment, not to grat- 
ify personal feelings, but to secure the great object 
of my heart, — solid peace between our two coun- 
tries." 

The death of his brother George, on October 6, 
led him to decline all invitations to speak during 
the autumn campaign, and he made no other pub- 
lic address before the meeting of Congress. 



CHAPTER XVI 

RECONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS 

President Lincoln regarded reconstruction 
from the standpoint of the Executive. His policy 
was to suppress the insurrection and then to per- 
mit the loyal citizens of each State to organize its 
government, giving them military protection during 
the process. He was in a hurry to see recon- 
struction accomplished, and distrusted the tedious 
methods of Congress. He perhaps did not suffi- 
ciently appreciate that the people were yet in doubt 
upon the questions involved, and that debates in 
Congress were the best way of educating leaders 
and people alike, until was formed that public 
opinion upon which any enduring reconstruction 
must rest. He seems also to have underesti- 
mated the danger of allowing a state government 
to be formed by a minority, especially where the 
persons allowed to act were determined by military 
order, and were bitterly hated by the majority. 

Sumner felt that the conditions of reconstruction 
must be fixed by Congress and the President to- 
gether, that the new governments must rest upon 
the consent of substantially the whole community, 
and that the freedom and rights of the colored 



256 CHARLES SUMNER 

race must be insured. Hence delay was necessary. 
He wished to build upon sound foundations an 
enduring structure, and this was not possible until 
the passions of war had cooled. While Lincoln 
lived harmony was preserved ; but when Andrew 
Johnson succeeded, inheriting Lincoln's opinions 
but not fully understanding them, and his violent, 
ill-regulated nature was substituted for Lincoln's 
" perfect steel," the conflict between the executive 
and the legislative policies became acute. Sum- 
ner was perhaps the first to appreciate the dangers 
of Lincoln's plan, and from the outset he led the 
opposition to any reconstruction without the con- 
sent of Congress. This controversy in its vari- 
ous phases occupied many years, and none more 
important ever engaged the attention of our peo- 
ple. The results of the war, the whole future of 
the country, were at stake, and at every stage in 
the struggle Sumner's influence was predominant. 
Sumner contributed to the " Atlantic Monthly " 
for October, 1863, an article upon reconstruction, 
originally prepared as a speech on his resolution 
of February 11, 1862, but withheld because the 
military situation was unfavorable. In tone and 
style it differed much from his speech on our for- 
eign relations. It is temperate, simple, and direct, 
and is a strong argument for the policy ultimately 
adopted by Congress. He began by pointing out 
that the President, without consulting Congress, 
had appointed military governors in four States, 
giving them practically absolute power, and that 



RECONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS 257 

if this precedent were to be followed, eleven 
States and more than nine millions of people 
would be governed arbitrarily by one man, in a way 
not recognized by the Constitution nor regulated 
by law. 

He reviewed the history of the confederation 
and the reasons which led to the adoption of the 
Constitution, reaching the conclusion that " this 
government is not established by the States, nor is 
it established for the States ; but it is established 
by the "people, for themselves and their posterity." 
He discussed the various theories as to the effect 
of secession on the relations of the States to the 
Union, and then stated an impregnable position : 
" For the time being, and in the absence of a loyal 
government, they can take no part and perform 
no function in the Union, so that they cannot 
be recognized by the national government. . . . 
Therefore to all pretensions in behalf of state gov- 
ernments in the rebel States I oppose the simple 
fact, that for the time being no such governments 
exist." 

To the suggestion that loyal men might reorgan- 
ize the governments, he replied : " Assuming that 
all this is practicable, as it clearly is not, it attributes 
to the loyal citizens of a rebel State, however few in 
numbers, — it may be an insignificant minority, — 
a power clearly inconsistent with the received princi- 
ple of popular government, that the majority must 
rule." He found abundant authority for congres- 
sional action in the necessity of the case, in the rights 



258 CHARLES SUMNER 

of war, and in the obligation imposed upon the 
United States " to guarantee to every State in this 
Union a republican form of government," which 
clearly conferred upon the national government 
" jurisdiction above all pretended state rights." 
He urged that this view must be adopted, because 
threats were openly made that the States would 
restore slavery, and because of the danger to loyal 
men involved in the recognition of the existing 
governments. In a word, he dealt with a condition 
to which all theories must bend, and argued that 
since military government was not permanent and 
no trustworthy civil government existed, Congress 
must deal with the situation, and pass laws to secure 
reconstruction with safety to the loyal and freedom 
to all. This plan was attacked by Montgomery 
Blair and others as revolutionary, but it is difficult 
to see what other course was possible. The article 
shows Sumner at his best. 

The first session of the Thirty-eighth Congress 
began in December, 1863, and adjourned the follow- 
ing July. It was a busy session, but not marked by 
any exciting issue. As Sumner wrote to Gladstone 
on January 1, 1864 : " Our politics seem to have 
something of the tranquillity of our neighboring 
army. Never since I have been in public life has 
there been so little excitement in Congress. The 
way seems at last open. Nobody doubts the re- 
sult. The assurance of the future gives calmness." 
There was, however, much to do in legislation 
and in education. Early in February, 1864, Sum- 



RECONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS 259 

ner offered a series of resolutions in order to bring 
his theory of reconstruction to public attention. 
In substance these declared that slavery was the 
cause of the rebellion ; that to crush the rebellion 
it was necessary to destroy it ; that in order to erad- 
icate every germ of rebellion, any scheme of re- 
construction must be rejected which did not provide 
" by irreversible guaranties against the continued 
existence or possible revival of slavery," and that 
these guaranties could be had only through the 
national government ; that it was therefore the duty 
of Congress to let no State resume its functions 
until within its borders proper safeguards were 
established, " so that loyal citizens, including the 
new-made freedmen, cannot at any time be molested 
by evil-disposed persons, and especially that no 
man there may be made a slave ; " that slavery 
must be destroyed in the loyal as well as the 
seceded States, so that it should " no longer exist 
anywhere to menace the general harmony," and 
that to this end the Constitution must be amended 
so as to prohibit slavery everywhere within the 
jurisdiction of the United States. On the next 
day he presented the petition of one hundred thou- 
sand persons praying Congress to pass an act of 
universal emancipation, and supported it briefly. 
Though Sumner did not disclose it, he inspired the 
movement which led to this petition ; but the time 
was ripe, and before Sumner moved his resolutions, 
two amendments abolishing slavery had been intro- 
duced in the House and one in the Senate. On the 



260 CHARLES SUMNER 

day when he introduced his resolutions he also 
proposed the amendment in this form : " Every- 
where within the limits of the United States and 
of each State or Territory thereof, all persons are 
equal before the law, so that no person can hold 
another as slave." 

When the amendment, in the form ultimately 
adopted, came before the Senate, Sumner proposed 
some changes in the phraseology, not liking the 
possible implication that men might be enslaved as 
a punishment for crime ; but finding his suggestions 
not acceptable, he withdrew them and supported 
the amendment. In his speech upon it he insisted 
that Congress could abolish slavery by statute, and 
urged that the power should be exercised without 
waiting for the slow process of constitutional 
amendment ; but he apparently asserted the exist- 
ence of this power with reference to possible future 
exigencies, rather than with any hope of present 
action. He might have been pardoned some per- 
sonal exultation over the change in public senti- 
ment since he entered the Senate, to which his own 
efforts had so largely contributed, but none appears 
in his speech. The cause for which he had sacri- 
ficed so much was about to win the final victory, 
but he is not exultant, only devoutly thankful. 
" For myself, let me confess," he said, " that in 
the presence of the mighty events now thronging, 
I feel how insignificant is any individual, whether 
citizen or senator." The amendment failed to re- 
ceive the necessary two thirds vote in the House 



RECONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS 261 

of Representatives until January 31, 1865, after 
Mr. Lincoln's reelection, and being subsequently 
ratified, it became a part of the Constitution on 
December 18 in the same year. 

Sumner's first great speech in the Senate was 
made on August 26, 1852, in support of a motion 
to repeal the Fugitive Slave Law. Twice after- 
ward he had renewed the attack in vain. This 
session was to witness his final victory. On Feb- 
ruary 8, 1864, he introduced a bill to repeal all 
fugitive slave laws, and had it referred to a com- 
mittee of which he was the chairman. On Feb- 
ruary 29 he reported it with an elaborate report, 
but when it was taken up in the Senate, Sher- 
man proposed to amend it so as to repeal only the 
act of 1850, leaving the act of 1793 in force. 
Against Sumner's opposition the amendment was 
adopted, and therefore he decided not to press the 
bill, but to wait the action of the House of Repre- 
sentatives, which on June 13 passed a bill repeal- 
ing all fugitive slave laws. Sumner took charge 
of this in the Senate, and pressed it vigorously 
till it passed, the Senate rejecting the amendment 
to preserve the act of 1793, which it had previously 
adopted. On June 28 this bill was approved, and 
thus all laws for the rendition of fugitive slaves 
were wiped from the statute-book. Sumner's report 
was a thorough historical and legal discussion of 
these acts and of the provision in the Constitu- 
tion upon which they rested. His speech against 
Sherman's amendment expressed almost indignant 



262 CHARLES SUMNER 

surprise that senators should at that late day be 
trying to protect slavery. 

He proceeded to attack and destroy the but- 
tresses of slavery one by one. On the day when 
he introduced his amendment to the Constitution 
he introduced also a bill to prevent the exclusion of 
witnesses on account of color in the courts of the 
United States. One would suppose that at so late 
a period in the civil war the bill would have passed 
at once, but Sumner could not get the Senate to 
consider it. He therefore moved it as an amend- 
ment to the civil appropriation bill, and though 
Sherman begged him not to press it because the 
weather was very hot and the amendment would 
provoke discussion, he insisted, and his proposition, 
with immaterial amendments, became the law. He 
had an almost identical experience with a bill to 
prohibit commerce in slaves among the States, but 
could not get it before the Senate until he moved 
it as an amendment to an appropriation bill. The 
amendment, at first lost, was renewed later, and 
carried. 

It was in the debate upon this amendment that 
Mr. Hendricks of Indiana made a suggestion, 
half a taunt but wholly true, when he said : " I 
am surprised that any senator should oppose the 
proposition of the senator from Massachusetts, for 
we all know that eventually it will be adopted. 
The objection as to its suitability, or proper con- 
nection with the measure, is but an objection of 
time. No gentleman can question that the senator 



RECONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS 263 

from Massachusetts will eventually carry his propo- 
sition." During the last ten years of his life the 
opponents of his proposals repeatedly attributed 
to Sumner such control over his Republican asso- 
ciates that, no matter how distasteful to them his 
ideas might be at the outset, they always finally 
adopted them ; or as Mr. Doolittle said in 1868, 
" he had not only educated, but had Sumnerized 
the Senate." 

During this session also he began the contest 
for negro suffrage. The first battle occurred upon 
a bill to provide a temporary government for the 
territory of Montana, amended in the Senate by 
giving the suffrage to every " free male citizen." 
Reverdy Johnson insisted that under the Dred 
Scott decision " black men " were not citizens. 
Sumner in reply asserted the right of Congress 
"to interpret the Constitution without constraint 
from the Supreme Court," and denounced the Dred 
Scott decision. The House of Representatives re- 
fused to concur, and the Senate yielded, perhaps 
for the reason suggested by Mr. Morrill of Maine, 
that there were no negroes in Montana to whom 
the amendment could possibly apply. Sumner, 
however, insisted that this made no difference, 
saying : " It is something to declare a principle, 
and I cannot hesitate to say that at this moment 
the principle is much more important than the 
bill. The bill may be postponed, but the principle 
must not be postponed." 

The contest was renewed on a bill to regulate 



264 CHARLES SUMNER 

elections in the District of Columbia, which did 
not confine the suffrage to white citizens. Mr. 
Cowan of Pennsylvania moved to amend by in- 
serting the word " white," and Sumner opposed 
him. The bill was never again considered, but a 
resolution relating to the registration of voters was 
reported later, which in effect excluded colored 
men. Sumner moved to amend by a proviso that 
no person should be excluded on account of color, 
insisting that his opponents were defending slav- 
ery. Many friends of negro suffrage, however, 
considered the resolution a temporary arrange- 
ment, and refused to imperil its passage by voting 
for the amendment, which was lost. Thus ended 
the contest for that session of Congress. 

Sumner's persistency in battling against all dis- 
crimination founded on color was conspicuously 
exhibited at this time in his efforts to prevent the 
exclusion of colored persons from street cars in the 
District of Columbia. The struggle lasted through 
several sessions with varying fortunes, but in the 
end he accomplished his object. He also actively 
supported the attempt of his colleague, Mr. Wil- 
son, to secure for colored soldiers equal pay with 
white, a result finally achieved by leaving the ques- 
tion to the attorney-general, who sustained the 
equality. 

The condition of the recently emancipated slaves 
was deplorable. Without property or education 
and with no knowledge of their rights, they were 
largely at the mercy of their white neighbors. The 



RECONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS 265 

social system of the South was destroyed and the 
result was general demoralization. 

At this session the first steps were taken to 
deal with this situation by establishing the Freed- 
men's Bureau, which Sumner called " a bridge from 
slavery to freedom." The measure, originating in 
the House of Representatives, reached the Senate 
in March, 1864, and was referred to Mr. Sumner's 
committee on slavery and freedmen, which on 
May 25 reported it, with a substitute drawn by 
him and adopted by the committee. This substan- 
tially established a bureau in the Treasury Depart- 
ment to take charge of freedmen, to secure for 
them an opportunity to work, and to protect them 
against any enforced labor, by requiring the sub- 
mission to local officers of their contracts with their 
employers. The officers of the bureau were to see 
that the freedmen did not suffer from ill treatment 
or breach of contract ; to do what was possible as 
arbitrators in disputes, and "to appear as next 
friends of the freedmen in trials before any court." 
In short, the bill undertook to supply the lately 
emancipated negroes with official friends to watch 
over them, advise them, and protect their inter- 
ests, exercising, however, no real authority, since 
they were dealing with free men. This was made 
perfectly clear by an amendment which Mr. Sum- 
ner himself offered : " And every such freedman 
shall be treated in every respect as a freeman with 
all proper remedies in courts of justice ; and no 
power or control shall be exercised with regard to 
him except in conformity with law." 



266 CHARLES SUMNER 

Mr. Sumner's substitute was adopted in the Sen- 
ate, but the House postponed the measure until the 
next session, when, amended so as to place the new 
bureau in the War Department, it became a law. 
The burden of supporting this bill at every stage 
fell upon Sumner as the senator in charge. It 
was vigorously opposed, especially by Mr. Grimes 
of Iowa, whose opposition seemed to Sumner al- 
most personal. Sumner made the importance of 
the measure clear in describing the condition of 
the f reedmen : — 

" They look about and find no home. They seek 
occupation, but it is not within their reach. They 
ask for protection, sometimes against former task- 
masters and sometimes against other selfish men. 
If these are not supplied in some way by the 
government, I know not where to look for them. 
... To this end a central agency is proposed at 
Washington, with subordinate agencies where the 
freedmen are to be found, devoted to this work of 
watching over emancipation, so that it may be sur- 
rounded with a congenial atmosphere." 

Such were the steps in the extirpation of slavery 
which Sumner urged during this session of Con- 
gress, and at its close he could look back upon sub- 
stantial victories. Slavery was dead. Henceforth 
his work was to remove from the statute-book all 
traces of its existence, and to secure for the new 
freedmen all their rights as citizens. 

Sumner did not neglect the work of the com- 
mittee on foreign relations, but at this session 



EECONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS 267 

made an exhaustive report upon the "French 
Spoliation Claims," in which their whole history- 
was given, and the obligation of the United States 
was made apparent. Though Congress was not 
willing then to satisfy these claims, their justice 
was established, and with a fuller treasury pro- 
vision has since been made for their payment. He 
supported the proposition to appoint consular 
pupils, dwelling upon the character of our service, 
and saying : " It is a shame that our offices 
abroad, whether consular or diplomatic, are served 
in this inferior way." 

On April 30, 1864, he introduced the first bill 
to reform the civil service, which he "matured 
alone without consultation," and which contained 
all the essential features of the present system. 
It gave the preference to the first on the list, and 
provided against removals except for cause, and 
for promotions according to seniority; but it al- 
lowed one fifth of the promotions to be made for 
merit "irrespective of seniority." The bill was 
cordially approved by the press, and the comments 
showed that the spoils system had begun to attract 
public disapproval ; but the time was not ripe for 
its passage and no actual legislation was had until 
March, 1871, when the appointment of the first 
Civil Service Commission was authorized by an 
amendment to an appropriation bill. 

In the debates upon the bill to establish national 
banks, Sumner persistently opposed subjecting the 
shares to state taxation. He offered an amend- 



268 CHARLES SUMNER 

ment which imposed a national tax on their circu- 
lation, deposits, and capital, in lieu of all other 
taxes. He argued that the instruments by which 
the new national currency was created should 
not be exposed to attack from the States, and 
he saw in the attempt to make them liable an- 
other assertion of state rights. Secretary Chase 
and other prominent men agreed with Sumner ; but 
Fessenden, for the finance committee, opposed his 
amendment with some bitterness, and the Senate 
followed the committee. Fessenden's acrimony in 
the debate disturbed for some years his relations 
with Sumner, but the bitterness disappeared be- 
fore they died. Sumner also advocated the estab- 
lishment of a branch mint in Oregon, his speech 
showing a remarkable knowledge of foreign ex- 
perience as well as our own, and containing an 
excellent discussion of coinage and the true func- 
tion of government in regard to it. He pre- 
vailed, and the branch mint was established. At 
this session, as always, he opposed imposts on books 
and on philosophical apparatus and instruments 
imported for schools, colleges, and like institutions, 
as taxes on knowledge never to be imposed in a land 
where education was free ; but Congress would not 
follow him. He proposed a bill to incorporate 
a national academy of literature and art, but in 
the contest between different measures this bill was 
not considered. He took part also in the discus- 
sion of the tariff, saying that he regarded the taxes 
imposed " as temporary or provisional," and levied 
merely to carry on the war. 



RECONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS 269 

The reconstruction problem came up again in 
June upon a resolution recognizing the free state 
government of Arkansas. The Union forces hav- 
ing occupied a part of Arkansas, a government had 
been organized within their lines, and members of 
Congress as well as state officers had been chosen. 
Sumner opposed recognition because the govern- 
ment represented only a minority of the people ; 
and to let this minority elect representatives and 
two senators, and cast the vote of the State in the 
electoral college, was to give it a wholly dispro- 
portionate influence in the government. He op- 
posed also because civil order was not sufficiently 
restored in Arkansas, and the new government 
rested in fact upon a military edict, and not upon 
that peaceful action of the people which is the 
proper foundation of civil government. He as- 
serted the necessity of congressional sanction to 
any permanent government, and insisted that this 
must not be given until freedom had been secured 
by "irreversible guaranties." The resolution of 
recognition was referred to the committee on the 
judiciary, which reported adversely. A few days 
later, when a bill postponing elections in the se- 
ceded States was pending, Mr. Sumner offered an 
amendment abolishing slavery in these States by 
act of Congress, but it was lost. 

With characteristic pertinacity he opposed the 
final adjournment of Congress, because increased 
taxes were necessary, and Congress ought not to 
adjourn without laying them. He acted invariably 



270 CHARLES SUMNER 

as if " thinking naught done while aught remains 
to do," and his catalogue of unfinished work often 
irritated his less diligent or enduring associates. 

During this session our foreign relations were 
not troublesome, but Sumner kept up his corre- 
spondence with leading Englishmen, and on the 
day of adjournment, July 4, 1864, he wrote this 
summary to the Duchess of Argyll : — 

" Congress will disperse to-day, having done sev- 
eral good things : (1) all fugitive slave acts have 
been repealed ; (2) all acts sustaining the traffic in 
slaves on the coast from one domestic port to an- 
other have been repealed, so that now there is no 
support of slavery in our statute-book ; (3) the 
railroads here in Washington have been required 
to admit colored persons into their carriages ; (4) 
greatest of all in practical importance, the rule of 
evidence excluding colored testimony in the United 
States courts has been abolished. All these mea- 
sures are now the law of the land. They were all 
introduced and pressed by myself. I feel happy 
in the result, but I shrink from saying that any- 
thing can make me happy now." 

To Gladstone, Bright, and Bishop Wilberforce 
among others, he urged action by England which 
would range her clearly on the side of freedom in 
the struggle to extirpate slavery. 



CHAPTER XVII 

THE LAST YEAR OF THE WAR 

During the summer of 1864 occurred the con- 
test over the renomination of Mr. Lincoln. Many 
leading Republicans had lost confidence in him, 
and an attempt to secure some other candidate was 
made, in which men like Wade, Henry Winter 
Davis, Horace Greeley, Governor Andrew, and 
many leading journalists were active. Mr. Chase 
had many supporters, and Grant and Sherman were 
suggested. Lincoln was renominated in June, but 
it was still felt by many that defeat was certain 
unless he withdrew, and steps were taken to se- 
cure his withdrawal and the substitution of an- 
other candidate. In these movements Sumner took 
no part ; he shared to some extent the doubts of 
his associates as to Lincoln's entire fitness, but his 
correspondence and conversation showed no strong 
feeling. A conference of leading men was held in 
New York on August 14, 1864, which resolved 
that a committee should request Mr. Lincoln to 
retire, and Dr. Lieber, who was present, informed 
Sumner of it. In reply Sumner stated his posi- 
tion, and in this letter to an intimate friend he 
spoke with absolute frankness. He said : — 



272 CHARLES SUMNER 

" Your letter about the meeting was very inter- 
esting. I do not see how anything can be done 
except through Mr. Lincoln and with his good-will. 
If he could see that patriotism required his with- 
drawal and would sincerely give his countenance 
and support to a new candidate, I am sure that the 
candidate of that convention, whoever he might 
be, could be chosen. ... If Mr. Lincoln does not 
withdraw, then all who now disincline to him must 
come to his support. I have declined to sign any 
paper or take any action, because I was satisfied 
that nothing could be done except through Mr. 
Lincoln and with his good-will. To him the ap- 
peal must be made and on him must be the final 
responsibility. But the Chicago platform will 
make it possible to elect him, if not easy. Indeed, 
I am prepared for an uprising against it." 

This platform described the war as " four years 
of failure " and demanded that it cease. Sumner 
was right in his anticipation, and under such a 
banner the Democrats marched to overwhelming 
and deserved defeat. 

Andrew Johnson was substituted for Hannibal 
Hamlin as the Republican candidate for the vice- 
presidency, not from any loss of confidence in Mr. 
Hamlin, but because it was felt that a Southern loy- 
alist would strengthen the ticket, and at that crisis 
nothing could be neglected which tended to insure 
success. The Massachusetts delegation supported 
the change, and one of them is quoted by Mr. 
Hamlin's son as saying that " Mr. Sumner and 



THE LAST YEAR OF THE WAR 273 

the Massachusetts delegation desired another can- 
didate," and that "Mr. Sumner appealed to the 
Massachusetts delegates and insisted that they 
should advocate the nomination of a war Democrat 
for vice-president, in order to bring more Demo- 
crats to the support of the Republican ticket." 
Mr. Dawes, then a representative in Washington, 
also is quoted as saying that this was the under- 
standing at the time. But neither speaks of any 
interview with Mr. Sumner, or seems to know per- 
sonally of any action by him. Mr. Dawes could 
readily have seen him, and if much interested in 
the controversy would doubtless have done so, but 
he does not speak of any conversation. On the 
other hand, Senator Morrill, who attended the con- 
vention and on the day after its adjournment wrote 
Mr. Hamlin the history of Mr. Johnson's nomi- 
nation, does not allude to Mr. Sumner; nor has 
any one ever shown any word or act of his before 
the nomination. He was in the Senate during the 
convention, his correspondence is silent on the sub- 
ject, and it was not his habit to interest himself 
in such contests. The whole evidence sustains the 
conclusion that he took no part in bringing about *s- 
the change of candidates. ~^ 

Writing to Cobden after the campaign had be- 
gun, he summed up the political situation thus : — 

" The hesitation in the support of Mr. Lincoln 
disappears at the promulgation of the Chicago 
treason. There was a meeting in New York of 
persons from different parts of the country to bring 



274 CHARLES SUMNER 

about a new convention to nominate a Union can- 
didate. The 'Tribune,' 'Evening Post,' 'Inde- 
pendent,' and Cincinnati ' Gazette,' were all repre- 
sented in it, but as soon as they read the platform, 
they ranged in support of Mr. Lincoln. I declined 
to take any part in the meeting, for I could not 
but see that nothing could be done except with 
Mr. Lincoln's good-will. . . . You understand that 
there is a strong feeling among those who have 
seen Mr. Lincoln in the way of business, that he 
lacks practical talent for his important place. It 
is thought that there should be more readiness, 
and also more capacity for government. But these 
doubts are now abandoned, and all are united to 
prevent the election of McClellan. To my mind 
the election is already decided." 

In the campaign of 1864 Sumner took an active 
part, speaking in a number of cities. Two of his 
speeches are preserved in his works and are excel- 
lent specimens of his most effective oratory. They 
are simple and direct, and present the issues of the 
campaign with great grasp and power. A single 
warning against party spirit may be quoted : — 

" Local prejudice, personal antipathy, and self- 
ish interest obscure the vision. And far beyond 
all these is the disturbing influence of ' party,' with 
all the power of discipline and organization added 
to numbers. Men attach themselves to political 
party as to a religion, and yield blindly to its be- 
hests. By error of judgment, rather than of heart, 
they give up to party what was meant for country 



THE LAST YEAR OF THE WAR 275 

or mankind. I do not condemn political parties, 
but warn against their tyranny. ... It is. unhap- 
pily, an evil of party always, even in its best estate, 
that it tends to dominate over its members. . . . 
This influence becomes disastrous beyond measure, 
when bad men obtain control or bad ideas prevail." 

In this speech he made his famous comparison 
between the Mayflower and the slave-ship : — 

"Go back to the earliest days of colonial his- 
tory, and you will find the conflict already prepar- 
ing. It was in 1620 that twenty slaves were 
landed at Jamestown, in Virginia, — the first that 
ever pressed the soil of our country. In that same 
year the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth. Those 
two cargoes contained the hostile germs which have 
ripened in our time. They fitly symbolize our 
gigantic strife. On one side is the slave-ship, and 
on the other is the Mayflower. . . . Each had ven- 
tured upon an untried and perilous ocean to find 
an unknown and distant coast. In this they were 
alike, but in all else how unlike! One was 
freighted with human beings forcibly torn from 
their own country, and hurried away in chains to 
be sold as slaves; the other was filled with good 
men, who had voluntarily turned their backs upon 
their own country, to seek other homes, where at 
least they might be free. One was heavy with 
curses and with sorrow ; the other was lifted with 
anthem and with prayer. And thus, at the same 
time, beneath the same sun, over the same waves, 
each found its solitary way. By no effort of 



276 CHARLES SUMNER 

imagination do we see on one Slavery and on the 
other Liberty, traversing the ocean to continue 
here, on this broad continent, their perpetual, im- 
mitigable war." This warfare thus begun could 
be ended, however, only by the destruction of 
slavery. 

To the demand of the Democratic party that 
hostilities should cease he replied : — 

" If you agree to abandon patriots and slaves in 
the rebel States, you will only begin your infinite 
difficulties. How determine the boundary line to 
cleave this continent in twain ? Where shall the 
god Terminus plant his stone ? What States shall 
be left at the North in the light of Liberty? 
What States shall be consigned to the gloom of 
Slavery? . . . 

" Suppose the shameful sacrifice consummated, 
the impossible boundaries adjusted, and the illu- 
sive terms and conditions stipulated, do you im- 
agine that you have obtained peace ? Alas, no ! 
Nothing of the sort. You may call it peace, but it 
will be war in disguise, ready to break forth in per- 
petual, chronic, bloody battle. Such an extended 
inland border, over which Slavery and Liberty 
scowl at each other, will be a constant temptation, 
not only to enterprises of smuggling, but to hostile 
incursions, so that our country will be obliged to 
sleep on its arms, ready to spring forward in self- 
defense. . . . Military preparations, absorbing the 
resources of the people, will become permanent in- 
stead of temporary, and the arts of peace will 



THE LAST YEAR OF THE WAR 277 

yield to the arts of war. Have we not war enough 
now ? " 

A few words at Faneuil Hall after the election 
may well be given as a contrast with those which 
he uttered when he first spoke in that venerable 
building at the beginning of his political career : — 

" The voice of the people at the ballot box has 
echoed back that great letter of the President, ' To 
whom it may concern,' declaring the integrity of 
the Union and the abandonment of slavery the 
two essential conditions of peace. Let the glad 
tidings go forth, ' to whom it may concern,' — to 
all the people of the United States, at length now 
made wholly free, — to foreign countries, — to the 
whole family of man, — to posterity, — to the mar- 
tyred band who have fallen in battle for their coun- 
try, — to the angels above, — ay, and to the devils 
below, — that this Republic shall live, for slavery 
is dead. This is the great joy we now announce to 
the world." 

It was during the campaign, on October 7, 1864, 
that the Wachusett captured the rebel privateer 
Florida in the harbor of Bahia, and carried her off 
from under the guns of the Brazilian fleet and 
forts. This daring breach of our obligations to 
Brazil naturally created some excitement, and the 
English press denounced it as an outrage. In a 
letter to the " Advertiser " Mr. Sumner replied that 
the act accorded with too many British precedents 
for England to complain ; and contended that, 
while Brazil might demand reparation, the prece- 



278 CHARLES SUMNER 

dents did not require a return of the ship. In Jan- 
uary, after the incident was closed, he wrote another 
letter. Both were written to put English critics 
on the defensive, and the first to strengthen the 
hands of the government in its negotiations with 
Brazil, rather than to justify the seizure under in- 
ternational law. 

During the recess of Congress Chief Justice 
Taney died, and Sumner urged the appointment of 
Chase to the vacant chair. Mr. Lincoln had lost 
much of his confidence in Chase and hesitated to 
appoint him, believing that, though chief justice, 
he would still aspire to the presidency; but he 
yielded to the general opinion, and made the ap- 
pointment. A few weeks later Sumner moved the 
admission of a colored man, J. S. Eock of Boston, 
to the bar of the Supreme Court, and the chief 
justice granted the motion, thus ignoring the Dred 
Scott decision and holding that a negro was a citi- 
zen, since none but a citizen could be admitted. 
This result was reached after a correspondence 
between Sumner and Chase and a consultation, in 
which the other judges apparently decided not to 
depart from the usage by which the chief justice 
acts upon admissions to the bar without consulting 
his associates. Thus quietly was the equality of 
colored men before the law recognized by the high- 
est tribunal in the country, and for so brief a time 
did the Dred Scott decision survive its author. 

Not content with this, Sumner opposed a bill to 
place a bust of Taney in the Supreme Court room, 



THE LAST YEAR OF THE WAR 



279 



speaking twice against it, and severely criticising 
his opinion in the Dred Scott case. His opposition 
defeated the bill, and it was not till two months 
before his death, and when illness kept him from 
the Senate, that a resolution providing for busts 
both of Taney and Chase passed Congress. 

The last session of the Thirty-eighth Congress 
began in December, 1865. The rebellion was tot- 
tering to its fall, and the session was uneventful. 
A raid from Canada into Vermont was made in the 
interest of the rebellion by a party of men who 
broke open banks and plundered citizens in St. 
Albans, and caused a brief excitement. A bill was 
introduced authorizing the President to spend ten 
million dollars in fortifications and floating batteries 
to protect our northern border, but in a few tem- 
perate remarks Sumner pointed out the danger of 
letting the rebels succeed in disturbing our rela- 
tions with England, and the bill was sent to the 
committee on foreign relations, where it died. 

The treatment of our soldiers in Southern prisons 
had produced deep indignation throughout the 
North, and naturally retaliation in kind was de- 
manded. The public feeling found expression in 
a resolution reported from the committee on mili- 
tary affairs in January, 1865/; which provided that 
the prisoners in our hands should receive the treat- 
ment " practiced towards our officers or soldiers in 
the hands of the insurgents, in respect to quantity 
and quality of food, clothing, fuel, medicine, medi- 
cal attendance, personal exposure, or other method 






f 






-•> 




280 CHARLES SUMNER 

of dealing with them ; that with a view to the same 
ends the insurgent prisoners in our hands ought to 
be placed under the control and in the keeping of 
officers and men who have themselves been pris- 
oners in the hands of the insurgents and have thus 
acquired a knowledge of their mode of treating 
Union prisoners." A few days later Sumner 
moved as a substitute a series of resolutions, which 
declared that retaliation, always harsh, was allow- 
able only where it was likely to effect its object 
and within narrow limits, and that, while the treat- 
ment of our officers and soldiers in rebel prisons 
was cruel, " any attempted imitation of rebel bar- 
barism in the treatment of prisoners " was imprac- 
ticable, useless, and immoral ; " that it could have 
no other result than to degrade the national char- 
acter and the national name, and to bring down 
upon our country the reprobation of history." His 
final resolution declared the determination of the 
United States to end the barbarous treatment of 
prisoners by ending the rebellion. 

He expanded his argument in a speech, and a 
long debate ensued in which many leading Repub- 
licans — "Wade, Howard, Chandler, Howe, Gratz 
Brown, Harlan, and others — favored the original 
resolutions, while the Democrats with some Repub- 
licans opposed. Sumner spoke again, saying : — 

" The committee . . . propose that Congress shall 
instruct the President to enter upon a system of 
retaliation, where we shall imitate as precisely as 
possible rebel barbarism, and make our prisons 



THE LAST YEAR OF THE WAR 281 

the scenes of torments we here denounce. Why, 
sir, to state the case is to answer it. . . . What 
civilization forbids cannot be done. Your enemy 
may be barbarous and cruel, but you cannot be 
barbarous and cruel. The rule is clear and un- 
questionable. . . . Even if you make up your 
minds to do this thing, you cannot. The whole 
idea is impracticable. The attempt must fail be- 
cause human nature is against you." 

The opposition was effective, and upon Sumner's 
motion the resolution was so modified as to susr- 
gest only retaliation " in conformity with the laws 
and usages of war among civilized nations." Thus 
amended it passed the Senate, but was never acted 
upon by the House. In thus opposing the indig- 
nation of the country Sumner showed the moral 
courage and the enlightened humanity which never 
failed him. Of these he gave another proof when 
he moved to amend a joint resolution authorizing 
a contract with the artist Powell for a picture to 
be placed in the Capitol, by adding : " Provided, 
That in the national Capitol, dedicated to the na- 
tional Union, there shall be no picture of a victory 
in battle with our fellow citizens." 

This found little or no support, and was rejected 
without division, but his action on these two mat- 
ters helped to teach many that his course towards 
slavery was dictated by hatred of the crime and 
not by personal bitterness against slaveholders. 



CHAPTER XVIII 

RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 

The question of reconstruction, heretofore dis- 
cussed as a question of the future, now became 
pressing, and the struggle, which had begun at the 
last session in the case of Arkansas, was renewed 
over a resolution to recognize a state government 
in Louisiana. The first issue was, whether the 
President by military order, or Congress by law, 
should control reconstruction ; the second was, 
whether the right of suffrage should be given to 
the colored men in the seceded States. Every- 
thing else was really matter of detail. The issue 
between Congress and the President had first to 
be fought out, and it was in effect settled at this 
session of Congress. To John Bright Sumner 
wrote, on January 1, 1865 : — 

" The President is exerting every force to bring 
Congress to receive Louisiana under the Banks 
government. I do not believe Louisiana is strong 
enough in loyalty and freedom for an independent 
State. ... I have discussed it with the President, 
and have tried to impress on him the necessity of 
having no break between him and Congress on 
such questions." 



RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 283 

That the reader may understand the discussions, 
the history of reconstruction in Louisiana may be 
sketched briefly. In December, 1863, President 
Lincoln had issued a proclamation proposing a plan 
of reconstruction. He offered all persons in the 
seceded States, with certain exceptions, pardon and 
restoration of property, except slaves, upon their 
taking an oath to support the Constitution of the 
United States, and the laws and proclamations with 
reference to slaves. He declared that whenever 
persons who had taken this oath, equal in number 
to one tenth of the votes cast at the presidential 
election of 1860, and qualified to vote by the laws 
of the State in force at the time of secession, should 
establish a state government republican in form 
and recognizing the freedom of the negroes, this 
government would be recognized as that of the 
State. This proclamation was discussed in the 
President's annual message of December, 1863. 
In accordance with it, and under orders issued by 
General Banks, which in effect allowed only male 
white citizens to vote, elections were held in Loui- 
siana early in 1864, at which state officers and dele- 
gates to a constitutional convention were chosen. 
Only some eleven thousand voters, including sol- 
diers, took part in the elections, and a much smaller 
number voted when the constitution was submitted 
to the people in September, 1864. The orders of 
Banks were not to be reconciled with constitutional 
principles, and while the State was the scene of 
hostile operations any fair and free expression of 



284 CHARLES SUMNER 

the popular will was impossible. The govern- 
ment thus established rested on military force and 
did not really represent the people of Louisiana. 
Meanwhile, Congress took up the subject, and 
after long deliberation passed an act in July, 1864, 
providing for conventions in the seceded States and 
for reconstruction by a majority of the voters ; but 
the President withheld his signature, and it failed 
to become a law. He refused his approval, partly 
because he did not wish to set aside the govern- 
ments which had been organized in Arkansas 
and Louisiana under his proclamation, "thereby 
repelling and discouraging the loyal citizens, who 
have set up the same, as to further effort." The 
result was to leave him in control of reconstruc- 
tion. 

This bill, as it passed the House, made the per- 
petual prohibition of slavery in the constitution of 
each reconstructed State an essential condition, 
but it gave the suffrage only to " white male citi- 
zens." The Senate committee reported it with an 
amendment striking out the word " white," but 
subsequently abandoned the amendment as endan- 
gering the bill. Sumner and four others voted for 
the amendment, and he then tried to amend the 
bill so as to give the Emancipation Proclamation 
the force of a statute. Defeated in this he voted 
for the bill, because it asserted the power of Con- 
gress over the terms of reconstruction and assured 
the freedom of the slaves, waiving for the last 
time his objection to any reconstruction without 



RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 285 

equal suffrage. Soon afterward he took his final 
position, that there could be no just and lasting 
reconstruction unless the negroes were given the 
vote, and thereafter he never wavered. 

The refusal of the President to sign the act 
passed by Congress, and his attempt to effect re- 
construction by proclamation and military order 
upon terms fixed by himself without the consent 
of Congress, had irritated some of the Republican 
leaders, and there were many who, like Sumner, 
felt that his plan was objectionable in itself. An 
issue was thus created between the President and 
many of his own supporters, which made the strug- 
gle in Congress especially interesting. The contest 
of the session began on February 18, 1865, with 
the introduction of a resolution from the committee 
on the judiciary, recognizing the government of 
Louisiana as the legitimate government of the 
State. Sumner opposed it, because the government 
thus established was " not republican in origin 
or form," and because it furnished "no secur- 
ity for the rights of colored persons." When it 
was taken up on February 23, he moved a sub- 
stitute, which declared that neither the people nor 
the legislature of any seceded State should elect 
senators or representatives in Congress, until the 
President should declare by proclamation that 
armed hostility to the government had ceased 
therein, nor until the people had adopted a consti- 
tution in harmony with the Constitution and laws 
of the United States, and Congress had by law 



286 CHARLES SUMNER 

declared the State entitled to representation. This 
substitute was defeated, but Sumner continued to 
antagonize the resolution, and in the press of busi- 
ness at the close of the session his determination 
to discuss the subject fully, and his refusal to per- 
mit a vote, prevented action upon it. He was 
charged with making obstructive motions, and re- 
plied that he thought the measure dangerous, and 
was justified in opposing it with all the weapons 
in the arsenal of parliamentary warfare. 

In the course of the discussion Sumner offered 
an amendment to the resolution, providing that it 
should not take effect " except upon the funda- 
mental condition that within the State there shall 
be no denial of the electoral franchise, or of any 
other rights, on account of color or race, but all 
persons shall be equal before the law," and requir- 
ing the assent of the legislature to this fundamen- 
tal condition. He made no extended speech, but 
he took the same ground in regard to the origin 
of the government that he had taken in discuss- 
ing the similar organization in Arkansas. 

For the same reasons he opposed the admission 
of Mr. Segar as senator from Virginia, saying: 
" It is in vain that senators say that Virginia, now 
in war against the Union, is entitled to represen- 
tation on this floor, when you have before you the 
inexorable fact that the greater part of the State 
is at this moment in the possession of an armed 
rebellion, and that other fact, repeated by the news- 
papers of the land, that the body of men who have 



RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 287 

undertaken to send a senator to Congress are little 
more than the common council of Alexandria." 

In support of his theories as to the position of 
the States in rebellion and the true method of re- 
construction, he offered two sets of resolutions 
during the session. The first in substance declared 
that the seceded States were not to be regarded as 
States in determining whether the constitutional 
amendment prohibiting slavery had been ratified. 
The other asserted that it was the duty of the 
United States by act of Congress to reestablish 
republican governments in the States whose gov- 
ernments had been vacated ; that the governments, 
to be republican, must rest on the consent of the 
governed, and that all persons must be equal before 
the law ; that no government " founded on military 
power or having its origin in military orders " 
could be republican. 

The defeat of the attempt to secure recognition 
for the governments of Arkansas and Louisiana 
established the control of Congress over the whole 
subject of reconstruction. In this contest Sumner 
opposed the President, and when we consider what 
the governments favored by Lincoln really repre- 
sented and upon what a slender foundation they 
rested, whether of numbers or character, it is clear 
that Sumner was not only right as a matter of prin- 
ciple, but practically wise in refusing to support 
them. If the power of the President to prescribe 
the conditions of reconstruction had been conceded, 
it is hard to say what evil might not have been 



288 CHAKLES SUMNER 

done by President Johnson. Sumner's attitude in 
this debate was supported by the anti-slavery sen- 
timent of the country, and it doubtless secured the 
establishment of equal suffrage without regard to 
color. His course was fiercely attacked, and the 
President criticised it freely. Indeed many be- 
lieved that the difference would lead to a breach 
of their friendly relations. Mr. Lincoln, however, 
was too magnanimous not to respect Mr. Sumner's 
right to differ with him on a public question, and 
he invited him to join the President's party at the 
inauguration ball. Sumner accepted, and his ap- 
pearance with the President on this occasion effec- 
tually silenced all doubts as to their friendship.// 
Until Lincoln's death their intercourse continued 
to be constant and cordial. In the Senate Sumner 
had avoided making any extended speech, for he 
recognized the difficulty of speaking without saying 
something that might be misinterpreted by the 
President ; but in a letter to John Bright, written 
just after the session closed, he spoke freely : — 

"I insist that the rebel States shall not come 
back except on the footing of the Declaration of 
Independence, with all persons equal before the 
law and government founded on the consent of 
the governed. In other words, there shall be no 
discrimination on account of color. If all whites 
vote, then must all blacks ; but there shall be no 
limitation of suffrage for one more than the other. 
It is sometimes said, 'What; let the freedman, 
yesterday a slave, vote ? ' I am inclined to think 



RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 289 

that there is more harm in refusing than in con- 
ceding the franchise. . . . Without their votes we 
cannot establish stable governments in the rebel 
States. Their votes are as necessary as their mus- 
kets ; of this I am satisfied. Without them the 
old enemy will reappear, and under the form of 
law take possession of the governments, choose 
magistrates and officers, and, in alliance with the 
Northern democracy, put us all in peril again, 
postpone the day of tranquillity, and menace the 
national credit by assailing the national debt. To 
my mind the nation is now bound by self-interest 
— ay, self-defense — to be thoroughly just." 

At the special session of the Senate, which began 
on March 4, 1865, Sumner offered again substan- 
tially the same resolutions, which he had offered as 
a substitute for the resolution recognizing the gov- 
ernment of Louisiana, and his policy, though at 
the time attacked by many leading Republicans, 
became, before another session, the accepted policy 
of the Republican party. 

This special session terminated on March 11, 
1865, but Sumner as usual remained in Wash- 
ington, seeing much of the President. ^/ When 
Mr. Lincoln was at the headquarters of the army, 
whither he went on March 23, Sumner by his 
invitation joined the party, and remained with it 
for several days, returning with it to Washington 
on April 9. During a part of the time Mr. John- 
son, the Vice-President, was in the neighborhood, 
and Mr. Sumner learned how much Mr. Lincoln 



290 CHARLES SUMNER 

disliked him, — a feeling which he was at little 
pains to conceal. 

Lee's surrender was announced to Sumner by a 
message from the White House ; but after a day 
or two of rejoicing the assassination of the Presi- 
dent came like a thunderbolt to change joy into 
profound grief, and to work a revolution in the 
political situation. Sumner heard the news shortly 
after the assassination occurred, and he went at 
once to the bedside of the President, where he re- 
mained till the end. One witness, who described 
the scene shortly after midnight, said : " Senator 
Sumner was seated on the right of the President's 
couch, near the head, holding the right hand of 
the President in his own. He was sobbing like a 
woman, with his head bowed down almost on the 
pillow of the bed on which the President was 
lying." He attended the meeting of senators and 
representatives in "Washington, and drew the reso- 
lutions which they adopted. He did what was 
possible for Mrs. Lincoln, and on leaving "Wash- 
ington she sent him her husband's cane, with a 
note in which she said : " Your unwavering kind- 
ness to my idolized husband and the great regard 
he entertained for you prompt me to offer for your 
acceptance this simple relic." These reminiscences 
show his relations with President Lincoln, and that 
differences upon questions of policy never impaired 
their mutual confidence and respect. 

Sumner did not realize the consequences which 
were to flow from Mr. Johnson's accession. "Writ- 



RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 291 

ing to Mr. Bright on April 18, he said : " Our 
government will continue tranquilly according to 
the requirements of fundamental law. It is prob- 
able that the policy towards leading rebels will be 
modified. President Lincoln was so essentially 
humane and gentle that he could not make up 
his mind to any severity, even to Jefferson Davis. 
. . . President Johnson is in a different mood." 
In a letter of April 25, he said : " I have seen a 
good deal of the new President, and have con- 
versed on questions of business and of general 
policy. . . . On Saturday the chief justice and 
myself visited him in the evening, especially with 
the view of conversing on negro suffrage. Suffice 
it to say that he is well disposed, and sees the 
rights and necessities of the case, all of which 
I urged earnestly. Both of us left him light- 
hearted." A week later he writes, after another 
interview : " Last evening I had a long conver- 
sation with him mainly on the rebel States, and 
how they shall be tranquillized. Of course my 
theme is justice to the colored race. He accepted 
this idea completely, and indeed went so far as to 
say, " There is no difference between us.". . . He 
deprecates haste ; is unwilling that States should 
be precipitated back ; thinks there must be a period 
of probation, but that meanwhile all loyal people 
without distinction of color must be treated as 
citizens, and must take part in any proceedings for 
reorganization." 

In repeated interviews Sumner presented his 



292 CHARLES SUMNER 

views, and he left Washington well assured that 
Johnson agreed with him, and that the battle for 
equal rights was won. 

On June 1 he delivered in Boston a eulogy upon 
President Lincoln, and, possessed with the impor- 
tance of persuading the country that negro suffrage 
was essential to lasting reconstruction, he availed 
himself of this opportunity to urge his views. The 
speech did full justice to Lincoln's great character- 
istics, and dwelt especially upon the consecration of 
his life to the principles embodied in the Declara- 
tion of Independence, of which the orator said: 
" The inevitable topic to which he returned with 
most frequency, and to which he clung with all the 
grasp of his soul, was the practical character of the 
Declaration of Independence in announcing the lib- 
erty and equality of all men. No idle words were 
there, but substantial truth, binding on the con- 
science of mankind." 

His entire harmony with Lincoln in devotion to 
human rights, is made absolutely clear by the tone 
in which he quoted from Lincoln's speeches and 
the admiration which he expressed. He firmly 
believed in the words of Lincoln : " This is a 
world of compensations ; and he who would be 
no slave must consent to have no slave. Those 
who deny freedom to others deserve it not for them- 
selves, and, under a just God, cannot long retain 
it." Their fellow countrymen will do well to burn 
these words upon their hearts. 

Three days earlier, the President had disap- 



RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 293 

pointed the country by his proclamation of May 
29 in regard to North Carolina, and this act may 
have added something to Mr. Sumner's speech. 
It certainly changed the whole political horizon. 
Johnson, in accepting the nomination for the vice- 
presidency, had denounced treason as " worthy 
of the punishment of death," and after he suc- 
ceeded to the presidency he frequently repeated: 
" Treason is a crime and must be punished as a 
crime." His treatment of the South seemed sure 
to be more vigorous than that which Mr. Lincoln 
proposed, and the impression which he conveyed to 
Sumner and Chase as to his views upon negro 
suffrage was confirmed by his public statements to 
various delegations. Therefore, when on May 29 
he issued a proclamation of amnesty, and another 
providing for reconstruction in North Carolina by 
a convention to be chosen only by persons qualified 
to vote before secession, thus excluding all colored 
men from the electorate, he astopished and greatly 
disappointed the loyal States. By some his change 
of position has been attributed to the persuasion 
of Southern men, for whom he had the instinctive 
respect of one who had held an inferior social po- 
sition among them ; by others to the influence of 
Seward and the Blairs. It is possible also that his 
public declarations were intended to assure his hear- 
ers of his general sympathy with their purposes and 
of his honest intention, rather than to announce a 
fixed policy. He was not a master of accurate state- 
ment, and his speeches can be explained consist- 



294 CHARLES SUMNER 

ently with his subsequent action. He may have 
thought that in following substantially the policy 
of Lincoln he was pursuing a safe course, which 
the country would approve, and in that case it 
is easy to understand how the attacks upon him 
might seem to him unjust, and operating upon a 
man of strong will, violent temper, and little edu- 
cation might drive him to the indefensible line of 
action which he afterwards adopted. President 
Johnson will probably be regarded by the historian 
as a patriotic man of pure intentions, but who 
could brook no opposition and was entirely unfit- 
ted for his great office. But whatever the verdict 
upon him in foro conscientice, his course endan- 
gered the whole results of the war. He had the 
will and it was not yet certain that he had not also 
the power to adopt a policy which would have left 
the negroes only the name of freedom and have 
given reconstruction into the hands of disloyal men. 
Sumner felt that unless this policy was defeated, 
the battles which had been won for equal rights 
must be fought again. So soon, therefore, as the 
proclamation of May 29 disclosed the President's 
purpose, he strove at once by letter and speech to 
kindle an opposition. He wrote to members of the 
Cabinet, members of Congress, and other men of 
influence, urging the importance of arresting the 
President's course and the necessity of giving the 
f reedmen suffrage. A petition from colored men of 
Savannah was sent to him for presentation to the 
President, and in a published letter he said : " It 



RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 295 

is impossible to suppose that Congress will sanc- 
tion governments in the rebel States which are not 
founded on ' the consent of the governed.' This 
is the corner-stone of republican institutions. Of 
course by the ' governed ' is meant all the loyal cit- 
izens without distinction of color. Anything else 
is mockery." 

For a few months Sumner found little support. 
There was, indeed, a meeting in Boston to demand 
equal suffrage ; but the Cabinet expressed no sym- 
pathy with Sumner's views, some members, like 
Seward, being in active sympathy with the Presi- 
dent, while others, like Stanton, were disinclined to 
make an issue with him. Sumner wrote of them 
on August 11 : " The attorney-general [Speed] is 
the best of the Cabinet ; but they are all courtiers, 
unhappily, as if they were the counselors of a 
king." 

Among the Republican leaders in Congress some 
doubted the power of prescribing the conditions of 
suffrage in the Southern States ; others, like Fes- 
senden and Wilson, felt it wiser to persuade than 
to oppose the President ; others again, like Stevens 
and Wade, thought opposition hopeless. Outside 
of Congress there was the same division of opinion. 
Governor Morton of Indiana, Governor Andrew of 
Massachusetts, and several of the leading newspa- 
pers opposed Sumner's attitude. Some of the old 
abolitionists, and Horace Greeley, in the "Tri- 
bune," their weight for equal suffrage, but among 
prominent Republicans, Sumner, almost alone, in- 



296 CHARLES SUMNER 

sisted that there should be no reconstruction unless 
impartial suffrage was allowed; that until the col- 
ored men were secured not only their freedom, but 
also absolute political equality before the law, the 
seceded States should not reenter the Union. 

To Mr. Schleiden, on June 27, he wrote : " On 
the suffrage question the President has changed. 
Shortly after I left Washington Southern influ- 
ences proved too strong. The ascendency is with 
the Blairs. I have a letter from a member of the 
Cabinet, telling me of a strong pressure on the 
President to enforce the Monroe Doctrine as a 
safety valve now, and to divert attention from do- 
mestic questions." Then, as always, a " vigorous 
foreign policy " was the favorite resort of those 
whose domestic policy had failed, and whose power 
was therefore threatened. 

To Dr. Lieber, on August 14, he said: "All 
my first impressions were for the writing and 
reading qualification ; but on reflection it seemed 
to me impracticable. Of course any rule must 
apply to the whites as well as to the blacks. Now 
you cannot get votes of Congress to disfranchise, 
which you must do in imposing this qualification. 
Providence has so arranged it that the work shall 
be done completely, because it must be done. Be- 
sides, there are very intelligent persons, especially 
among the freedmen, who cannot read or write. 
But we need the votes of all, and cannot afford to 
wait." 

Again, on August 21 : " The true policy of the 



RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 297 

administration is as plain as noonday. No path 
was ever clearer, and how they could get away 
from it is astonishing. (1.) Refer the whole ques- 
tion of reconstruction to Congress where it belongs. 
What right has the President to reorganize States ? 
(2.) Meanwhile, by good government through mil- 
itary officers, to lead public opinion in the right 
direction. (3.) To obey the existing laws of Con- 
gress, which expressly exclude from public service 
any person who has sustained the rebellion. (4.) 
To obey the Constitution, which refuses to make 
any distinction of color. (5.) To redeem the pro- 
mises of the Declaration of Independence instead 
of openly setting them at defiance. Why the Cabi- 
net have not insisted upon these plain rules is very 
strange. I have been invited to preside at the 
coming Republican State Convention for Massa- 
chusetts. At any other time I should not do it ; 
but I shall now, in order to speak the voice of 
Massachusetts." 

He carried out this purpose, and on September 
14 made a speech to the convention, which Mas- 
sachusetts received with cordial approval. It was 
a discussion of the conditions to be observed in re- 
construction, with no criticism of the President 
or of those who agreed with him, — a statement of 
what could and ought to be done. At the outset 
he said : — 

" When last I addressed my fellow citizens, at 
the close of the late presidential canvass, ... I 
said to friends near me, 'This is my last anti- 



298 CHARLES SUMNER 

slavery speech.' I so thought at the time ; for I 
anticipated the speedy downfall of the rebellion, 
carrying with it slavery. I was mistaken. Neither 
the rebellion nor slavery is yet ended. The rebel- 
lion has been disarmed ; but that is all. Slavery 
has been abolished in name ; but that is all. . . . 
The work of liberation is not yet completed. Nor 
can it be, until the equal rights of every person once 
claimed as a slave are placed under the safeguard 
of irreversible guaranties. 

"It is essential . . . that all men should be 
hailed as equal before the law ; and this enfran- 
chisement must be both civil and political. Unless 
this is done, the condition of the freedman will be 
deplorable. Exposed to every brutality, he will 
not be heard as a witness against his oppressor. 
Compelled to pay taxes, he will be excluded from 
all representation in the government. Without 
this security, emancipation is illusory. ... It is 
impartial suffrage that I claim, without distinction 
of color, so that there shall be one equal rule for 
all men. And this, too, must be placed under the 
safeguard of constitutional law." 

He counseled against any reliance on oaths or 
pardons and against the too prompt removal of 
political disabilities, saying of the Confederates : — 

" I would not be harsh. There is nothing humane 
that I would reject. Nothing in hate. Nothing in 
vengeance. Nothing in passion. I am for gentle- 
ness. I am for a velvet glove ; but for a while I 
wish the hand of iron." But it was not yet time 



RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 299 

to trust them : " Therefore, we turn from recent 
rebels to constant loyalists. This is only ordinary 
prudence. As those who fought against us should 
be for the present disfranchised, so those who 
fought for us should be at once enfranchised. . . . 

" All these guaranties should be completed and 
crowned by an amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States, especially providing that here- 
after there shall be no denial of the electoral fran- 
chise or any exclusion of any kind on account of 
race or color, but all persons shall be equal before 
the law." 

These quotations indicate his position, but give 
no idea of his speech, which was very effective. 
The Massachusetts convention applauded and in- 
dorsed it, and by contrast we may note the posi- 
tion of Pennsylvania, as it appeared to Thaddeus 
Stevens, whose views were not less radical than those 
of Sumner, and whose courage was undoubted : — 

" I am glad you are laboring to avert the Presi- 
dent's fatal policy. I wish the prospect of success 
were better. I have twice written him, urging him 
to stay his hand till Congress meets. Of course he 
pays no attention to it. Our editors are generally 
cowardly sycophants. I would make a speech, as 
you suggest, if a fair occasion offered. Our views 
(Reconstruction and Confiscation) were embodied 
in our resolutions [in the Republican State Con- 
vention, recently held] at Harrisburg, amidst much 
chaff. Negro suffrage was passed over, as heavy 
and premature. Get the rebel States into a terri- 



300 CHARLES SUMNER 

torial condition, and it can be easily dealt with. 
That, I think, should be our great aim. Then 
Congress can manage it." 

The President's plan of reconstruction was sim- 
ple. In each State he appointed a provisional 
governor, and provided for a constitutional con- 
vention to frame a state government under which 
there should be held elections for state officers and 
for members of Congress. Under the proclama- 
tion of amnesty all white men in the Southern 
States might vote and hold office on taking an oath 
to support the Constitution, except those belonging 
to certain specified classes who could be pardoned 
and restored to their rights on special application 
to the President. On the other hand colored men 
were denied all "right to vote or hold office. Men 
who had shown their sympathy with secession by 
their acts were appointed provisional governors, 
and thus given the power to direct the course of 
reconstruction. It was not to be expected that 
those who had held slaves for years and had lost 
them suddenly by what seemed to them an arbi- 
trary and unjust act should be ready at once to 
treat them as citizens. The passions which had 
brought on the war had not been quenched by the 
bitter struggle of four years, and it was not in 
human nature that the defeated should at once 
become loyal. The radical vice of the President's 
plan was that it placed the freedmen and the loyal 
minority of whites absolutely in the power of the 
disloyal majority. It opened to men but lately in 



RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 301 

rebellion the pathway to power in the national 
government through an alliance with the Demo- 
cratic party in the North, while it assured them 
control of their own section. 

The conventions and legislatures organized under 
the President's proclamation annulled the ordi- 
• nances of secession, ratified the Thirteenth Amend- 
i ment, and declared the Confederate debt invalid, 
but uniformly excluded negroes from all rights as 
citizens, and passed statutes designed to keep them 
in subjection to the whites, restoring slavery in fact, 
if not in name. Assured of the President's sup- 
port and of their own restoration to power, they 
took little pains to conceal their feelings, and as 
a result the Southern Unionists found themselves 
in danger, while the colored people were exposed 
to outrages of every kind. 



CHAPTER XIX 

THE STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 

Such were the conditions which confronted the 
Thirty -ninth Congress on December 4, 1865. Sum- 
ner reached Washington two days earlier, and at 
once called on the President. Some weeks before 
this he had sent him a telegram, which began : 
"As a faithful friend and supporter of your ad- 
ministration, I most respectfully petition you to 
suspend for the present your policy towards the 
rebel States," and gave with necessary brevity 
his reasons, which were those of his speech to the 
Republican convention. He had not criticised Mr. 
Johnson personally, and he called upon him as a 
leader of the party which had made him president. 
He thus described his interview and his relations 
with the administration : — 

" I found him changed in temper and purpose. 
How unlike that president who only a few days 
after arrival at power made me feel so happy in 
the assurance of agreement on the great question. 
No longer sympathetic, or even kindly, he was 
harsh, petulant, and unreasonable. Plainly his 
heart was with ex-rebels. For the Unionist, white 
or black, who had borne the burden of the day, he 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 303 

had little feeling. He would not see the bad spirit 
of the rebel States, and insisted that the outrages 
there were insufficient to justify exclusion from 
Congress. ... I left the President that night with 
the painful conviction that his whole soul was set 
as flint against the good cause, and that by the 
assassination of Abraham Lincoln the Rebellion 
had vaulted into the presidential chair. Jefferson 
Davis was then in the casemates at Fortress Mon- 
roe, but Andrew Johnson was doing his work." 

On the first day of the session Sumner opened 
his campaign by introducing six bills and a num- 
ber of resolutions. The bills were : to secure 
equal suffrage in the District of Columbia; to 
secure the presence of colored jurors upon the 
panel at the trial of cases in which the rights of 
colored persons were involved ; to prescribe a form 
of oath which should be required of every voter 
or officer in the seceded States ; to forbid the de- 
nial in those States of rights, civil or political, on 
account of race or color, and to make all persons 
" equal before the law, whether in the court room 
or at the ballot box ; " to enforce the Thirteenth 
Amendment by making it a crime to " claim any 
right to control the services " of any person in con- 
travention of its provisions. This last bill gave 
the federal courts jurisdiction of offenses committed 
by or against persons of African descent, and of all 
suits to which such persons should be parties, and 
it annulled all state laws or customs making any 
distinction of rights on account of race or color. 



304 CHARLES SUMNER 

Another bill contained a complete scheme of 
reconstruction. It was carefully drawn, but its 
exact provisions are not material. In effect it gave 
Congress the control of reconstruction, insured 
equal suffrage, prevented all distinctions of race or 
color, and disfranchised the leaders of the rebellion. 

A set of resolutions presented the same ideas 
in a different form. Another resolution proposed 
the amendment to the Constitution which he had 
previously offered, apportioning representatives ac- 
cording to the number of voters in each State, while 
a third declared the Thirteenth Amendment ratified 
by the action of the loyal States. Thus Sumner 
placed before Congress and the country his method 
of dealing with the existing situation. 

On December 19, in answer to a resolution of 
the Senate, the President sent the reports of Gen- 
erals Grant and Schurz as to the condition of the 
seceded States, and accompanied them by a mes- 
sage in which he expressed his belief " that sec- 
tional animosity is surely and rapidly merging 
itself into a spirit of nationality, and that represen- 
tation, connected with a properly adjusted system 
of taxation, will result in a harmonious restoration 
of the relations of the States to the national 
Union." 

The report of General Grant, made after a brief 
tour, expressed the belief that the Southern States 
were in good faith accepting the results of the war, 
and were anxious to resume their relations with 
the Union, and said nothing to indicate that* the 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 305 

colored race was in any way ill treated. General 
Schurz, whom the President had sent to examine 
into the conditions at the South, had reached 
exactly opposite conclusions. After the President's 
message and General Grant's report had been read, 
Mr. Sumner called for the reading of General 
Schurz's report. Some senators objecting on ac- 
count of its length, Sumner said : — 

" It is a very important document. . . . We 
have a message from the President which is like 
the whitewashing message of Franklin Pierce with 
regard to the enormities in Kansas. Such is its 
parallel. I think the Senate had better at least 
listen to the opening of Major-General Schurz's 
report." 

The phrase " whitewashing " provoked some of 
the President's supporters, and Mr. Doolittle of 
Wisconsin urged Sumner to withdraw or at least 
to qualify it, but he refused, disclaiming any " re- 
flection on the patriotism or the truth of the Pre- 
sident," but insisting that the adjective properly 
described the message. The remark was the first 
shot in the impending war, and caused an extended 
discussion in the press and elsewhere. Sumner's 
attitude was strongly criticised by some as injudi- 
cious and as likely to provoke unhappy dissension, 
but the more positive men recognized and rejoiced 
in the justice of the phrase, and applauded it. On 
the following day Sumner spoke upon Mr. Wilson's 
bill to establish the civil rights of the negroes in 
the rebel States, beginning thus : — 



306 CHARLES SUMNER 

" When I think of what occurred yesterday in 
this chamber, when I call to mind the attempt to 
whitewash the unhappy condition of the rebel 
States, and to throw the mantle of official oblivion 
over sickening and heart-rending outrages, ... I 
feel that I ought to speak of nothing else." 

He then showed the real condition of the South 
by many quotations from letters written by officers, 
travelers, and citizens, from speeches of Southern 
men, and from official documents. The testimony 
was overwhelming. The case thus presented may 
be judged from one or two quotations, which are 
specimens of the whole : — 

" This is precisely what ninety-nine in every 
hundred of the men, women, and children believe 
sincerely as to the situation to-day : first, that the 
South of right possesses, and always possessed, the 
right of secession; secondly, that the war only 
proved that the North was the strongest ; thirdly, 
that negro slavery was and is right, but has been 
abolished by the war. 

" All expect the negro will be killed in one way 
or another by emancipation. The policy of those 
who will eventually become the leaders here at the 
South is, for the present, to accept the best they 
can get, to acquiesce in anything and everything, 
but to strain every nerve to regain the political 
power and ascendency they held under Buchanan. 
This, they believe, cannot be postponed longer than 
up to the next presidential election. They will 
do all in their power to resist negro suffrage, to 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 307 

reduce taxation and expenditures, and would attack 
the national debt if they saw any reason to believe 
repudiation possible. They will continue to assert 
the inferiority of the African, and they would to- 
day, if possible, precipitate the United States into 
a foreign war, believing they could then reassert 
and obtain their independence. . . . On the whole, 
looking at the affair from all sides, it amounts to 
just this : If the Northern people are content to 
be ruled over by the Southerners, they will con- 
tinue in the Union, if not, the first chance they get 
they will rise again." 

"The former masters exhibit a most cruel, re- 
morseless, and vindictive spirit toward the colored 
people. In parts where there are no Union soldiers 
I saw colored women treated in the most outrageous 
manner. They have no rights that are respected. 
They are killed, and their bodies thrown into ponds 
or mud holes. They are mutilated by having ears 
and noses cut off." 

The evidence collected in this speech and the re- 
port of General Schurz justified Sumner's descrip- 
tion of the President's message, and from that time 
the President steadily lost ground in public opinion. 
It was a process of education, and Sumner's posi- 
tion was sustained by evidence of Southern feeling 
daily brought to the North by the press and pri- 
vate correspondence. Men were reluctant to re- 
alize that a conflict with their own President must 
be won before the results of the war were finally 
assured, and they would gladly have closed their 



308 CHARLES SUMNER 

eyes to the facts, fearing disturbance of business, 
loss of office and political power, — in a word, trou- 
ble, of which they had had enough. But the facts 
were too strong and the unsettled question of the 
day, as always, had "no respect" for their "re- 
pose." The rapid change in public opinion is 
perhaps shown by the history of the very bill upon 
which Mr. Sumner made his speech. 

In the debate which followed Mr. Trumbull and 
other leading Republicans expressed the hope that 
the measure was unnecessary, that the South would 
change its laws in good faith so as to secure the 
rights of the freedmen, and that the conditions 
were exaggerated by Mr. Sumner. By general 
consent Mr. Wilson's bill was laid aside ; but on 
January 5, 1866, only some two weeks later, Mr. 
Trumbull himself introduced a bill to prevent any 
discrimination in civil rights on account of race, 
color, or previous condition of slavery. On the 
same day he introduced a bill giving to the Freed- 
men's Bureau jurisdiction wherever there were 
freedmen or refugees, and empowering it to pro- 
tect freedmen against hostile discrimination on 
account of race or color. This was fiercely op- 
posed by the congressmen from the slave States 
which had not seceded, and by some Republicans, 
but it passed both houses by large majorities. The 
President vetoed it on February 19, and the Sen- 
ate failed to pass it over his veto, though his veto 
message contained no argument which had not been 
presented when the bill was under consideration. 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 309 

The first vote in the Senate was thirty-seven to 
ten ; on the question of passing it over the veto it 
was thirty to eighteen. Congress was not yet fully 
enlisted in the struggle with the President. 

Opinion was forming rapidly, however, as is 
shown by the fate of Mr. Trumbull's Civil Eights 
bill, introduced on the same day with his Freed- 
men's Bureau bill. This was a bill to prevent any 
discrimination in civil rights on account of race or 
color; and it was reported by the committee on 
the judiciary, with an amendment declaring " all 
persons born in the United States and not sub- 
ject to any foreign power " " to be citizens of the 
United States, without distinction of color." After 
a full debate, in which the measure was supported 
upon the grounds already urged by Sumner, the 
bill passed both Houses. On March 27 the Presi- 
dent refused his approval, but Congress passed the 
bill over his veto on April 9, and thus made appar- 
ent the position which the Republican party would 
take as to the state governments erected under the 
President's proclamation. Later in the session an- 
other bill enlarging the powers of the Freedmen's 
Bureau, and extending the period of its existence, 
was passed over the President's veto. In the ex- 
cited debate over these measures Sumner took no 
part, content with the arguments of his associates. 
After his speech of December 20, he made no fur- 
ther attacks on the President's policy. 

The state legislature of Florida, chosen under 
the President's proclamation, had elected Mr. Mar- 



i 



310 CHARLES SUMNER 

vin senator, but when his credentials were pre- 
sented Sumner objected, calling attention to the 
composition of the legislature in which Confeder- 
ate officers largely predominated, and to the state 
constitution which disfranchised negroes. The 
credentials were laid on the table, and the case 
was never moved again. In this case, as in Mr. 
Segar's, Sumner's objections settled the case against 
the state government organized by executive ac- 
tion. 

On February 5 the Senate took up a resolution, 
which had passed the House, in favor of an amend- 
ment to the Constitution providing that represent- 
atives should be apportioned among the States 
according to the population, " excluding Indians 
not taxed," with the proviso : " That whenever the 
elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in 
any State on account of race or color, all persons 
therein of such race or color shall be excluded from 
the basis of representation." This was strongly 
supported by many Republican leaders, including 
Thaddeus Stevens, who usually sympathized with 
Sumner but was a more practical politician. Sum- 
ner was absolutely opposed to this proposition and 
put forth all his energies to defeat it. He spoke 
against it on February 5 and 6, 1866, very elab- 
orately and effectively. This speech and the oth- 
ers which he made during the debate are upon a 
high plane, discussing the question with earnest- 
ness and dignity, but without personal feeling. 
The elevation of tone is made more striking by 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 311 

comparison with the speeches of other senators, 
notably Mr. Fessenden, who was in charge of the 
measure, and spoke at times with acrimony. 

The real nature of the proposition which Sumner 
was combating was well stated by Mr. Cowan of 
Pennsylvania, who sympathized with the President, 
and opposed the amendment. He said : " This 
committee proposes in this amendment to sell out 
four million (radical count) negroes to the bad 
people of those States for ever and ever. In con- 
sideration of what ? . . . For about sixteen mem- 
bers of Congress. Has there ever been before, 
sir, in the history of this or any other country, such 
a stupendous sale of negroes as that?" Sumner 
opposed it on various grounds. He said that after 
Congress had been " carefully expunging from the 
statute-book the word ' white,' " it was proposed 
to insert in the Constitution itself a distinction 
of color, and to make another of those fatal com- 
promises with human rights which had fastened 
slavery upon the country. His demand was for 
enfranchisement as the necessary complement of 
emancipation, without which it must fail, and he 
added : " By enfranchisement I mean the estab- 
lishment of the equal rights of all, so that there 
shall be no exclusion of any kind, civil or political, 
founded on color, and the promises of the fathers 
shall be fulfilled." 

He proved from historical sources what was 
meant by " a republican form of government " as 
used in the Constitution, and that its essence was 



312 CHARLES SUMNER 

expressed by James Otis in his famous " Taxation 
without representation is tyranny." In reply to 
Fessenden he showed that representation did not 
mean representation of communities, but of indi- 
viduals. Upon these points his speeches are a mag- 
azine of learning. His postulate was thus stated: 

"A state which, in the foundation of its gov- 
ernment, sets aside ' the consent of the governed,' 
which imposes taxation without representation, 
which discards the principle of equal rights, and 
lodges power exclusively with an oligarchy, aris- 
tocracy, caste, or monopoly, cannot be recognized 
as a ' republican form of government,' according to 
the requirement of American institutions." 

His principal speech is unnecessarily long, yet 
it is stimulating and refreshing. The quotations 
with which he seemed to overload this and other 
elaborate speeches served at least one purpose: 
they created an atmosphere removed from the 
political struggles of the day, and placed the reader 
in association with the great men of successive 
ages, so that it was easier to recognize as eternal 
the principles which such even united in accepting, 
and to see the baser arguments of the moment in 
their true relation. 

He gave the figures which showed the proportion 
of negroes in the total population of the South, 
and argued that no government could be called re- 
publican where political rights were denied to so 
large a portion of the people. He met the argu- 
ment drawn from laws which impose educational 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 313 

and other qualifications as follows : " Let me be 
understood. What I ask especially is impartial 
suffrage, which is, of course, embraced in universal 
suffrage. What is universal is necessarily impar- 
tial. For the present, I simply insist that all shall 
be equal before the law, so that in the enjoyment 
of this right there shall be no restriction not equally 
applicable to all." 

He dwelt upon the value of the ballot as assuriDg 
peace and reconciliation, as an educational influ- 
ence, as a means of defense to the negro ; and he 
claimed also that it was necessary for the safety of 
the country. He said : " It is idle to expect any 
true peace while the freedman is robbed of this 
transcendent right, and left a prey to a vengeance 
too ready to wreak upon him the disappointment 
of defeat. The country, sympathetic with him, 
will be in perpetual unrest. With him it will suf- 
fer ; with him alone can it cease to suffer. . . . 
He is our best guaranty. Use him. If he votes 
now, there will be peace. Without this you must 
have a standing army, which is a sorry substitute 
for justice. Before you is the plain alternative of 
the ballot box or the cartridge box : choose ye 
between them." 

The whole speech, with its array of authority, 
had, perhaps, as much effect on public opinion as 
any that Mr. Sumner ever made. Its temperate 
and earnest statements carried conviction to many 
who hesitated, and educated the public to accept 
negro suffrage. The resolution which he opposed 



314 CHARLES SUMNER 

did not receive the necessary votes in the Senate, 
and the proposed amendment failed. During the 
debate Sumner explained the difference between 
this proposition and his own proposal for appor- 
tioning representatives according to voters and not 
according to population. His proposition in no 
way prevented Congress from securing impartial 
suffrage, or brought into the Constitution any re- 
cognition of color as a reason for inequality of 
rights, and he offered simultaneously a series of 
resolutions declaring the duty of Congress to secure 
equal rights for the freedmen. He proposed the 
rule adopted in Massachusetts and urged by him 
in the constitutional convention of 1853. There 
was nothing inconsistent, therefore, in Sumner's 
opposition to the amendment. 

The defeat of the resolution left the question un- 
settled, and paved the way for the Fourteenth and 
Fifteenth amendments. The result was received 
with much regret by many of Sumner's associates, 
who held him responsible. The President also was 
excited, and on the day after Sumner's speech, 
speaking to a delegation of colored men, he criti- 
cised it with some feeling, dwelling upon his own 
service to their cause, and expressing his unwill- 
ingness to adopt a policy likely to result in race 
conflicts. He was more violent in a speech from 
the steps of the White House on February 22, when 
he classed Stevens, Sumner, and Wendell Phillips 
with Davis, Toombs, and Slidell, as opposed to the 
Union and anxious to destroy our institutions. 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 315 

This was the first attack by the President on Re- 
publicans by name, and it increased the growing 
hostility. 

The amendment to the Constitution was defeated 
on March 9, and three days later a bill for the 
admission of Colorado was taken up. Sumner op- 
posed it, partly because the population was small 
and decreasing, and it seemed to him unfair that 
so small a body should be given an equal voice with 
New York in the Senate. But chiefly he urged 
that the Constitution of the State allowed only 
white citizens to vote. He took an active part 
in the discussion of the bill and offered an amend- 
ment providing that the State should not be ad- 
mitted except upon the condition, accepted by a 
majority of the voters, that there should be no de- 
nial of suffrage or of any other right on account 
of race or color. This was finally defeated and the 
bill was passed. The President vetoed it, and on 
a motion to assign it for further consideration 
Sumner announced his purpose to sustain the veto ; 
but the bill was never taken up and fell with the 
session. 

The desire to increase the Republican vote in 
the Senate caused the pressure for the admission 
of the State, and this probably explains the Presi- 
dent's opposition. Sumner met this argument char- 
acteristically, saying : — 

" Tell me not that it is expedient to create two 
more votes in this chamber. Nothing can be ex- 
pedient that is not right. If I were now about to 



316 CHARLES SUMNER 

pronounce the last words that I could ever utter in 
this chamber, I would say to you, Senators, do not 
forget that right is always the highest expediency. 
You can never sacrifice the right without suffering 
for it." 

Later in the session the question was raised again 
on a bill to admit Nebraska. Mr. Sumner moved 
the same condition as in the case of Colorado, but 
the motion was lost. The bill passed, but was not 
signed by the President, and the session closed with 
the question still open. Upon a resolution declar- 
ing Tennessee entitled to representation, Sumner 
made the same point and undertook to attach the 
same condition ; but his amendment was defeated, 
and the resolution passed and was signed by the 
President. 

The Republican leaders were not satisfied to 
leave the question of suffrage as it was left by the 
defeat of the proposed constitutional amendment, 
and on April 30, 1866, Mr. Stevens reported a new 
resolution, proposing the first form of what, after 
many changes of language and some of substance, 
was afterwards adopted as the Fourteenth Amend- 
ment. Wilson, in his " Rise and Fall of the Slave 
Power," says that the committee on reconstruc- 
tion had adopted a much more sweeping amend- 
ment, which forbade any discrimination as to civil 
rights, and, after July 4, 1876, as to suffrage, on 
account of race, color, or previous condition of 
servitude, but that this failed because the Republi- 
can representatives from New York, Illinois, and 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 317 

Indiana were afraid that the adoption of negro suf- 
frage by the Republicans might defeat the party 
at the next election in those States. This shows 
that Sumner's associates were themselves in agree- 
ment with him, but feared their constituents, so 
that the differences which appeared in the debate 
were more apparent than real. The amendment 
as finally drawn avoided the objection made by 
Mr. Sumner to the earlier one, in that it did not 
recognize the right of a State to deny the suffrage 
to any citizen on account of color. On this point 
it conformed more nearly to his idea of apportion- 
ing representatives according to voters, while it 
left Congress at liberty to prevent any discrimina- 
tion inconsistent with a republican form of gov- 
ernment. It also contained two other things which 
he had proposed and considered vital : the declara- 
tion that the national debt should not be questioned, 
nor any debt incurred in aid of the rebellion paid ; 
and the exclusion from office of all persons who, 
having as federal or state officers sworn to sup- 
port the Constitution of the United States, had 
afterwards taken part in or aided the rebellion. 
Satisfied on these points, he did not speak, but 
voted for the amendment. It was one step to- 
wards the goal which he had in view, and it left the 
way open. He would have preferred to take the 
final step at once, but did not decline to make 
the advance for which his associates were ready. 
So far as it provided for reducing the representa- 
tion of a State the amendment has thus far been 
of no effect. 



318 CHARLES SUMNER 

The net result of the session was that the ques- 
tion of equal suffrage had been thoroughly dis- 
cussed, that the doubts as to the power of Congress 
to impose it upon the States were gradually dis- 
appearing, that the necessity of requiring it was 
becoming clearer, that nothing had been done af- 
fecting the control of Congress over the question, 
and that an amendment had been defeated, which 
would have placed in the Constitution a recognition 
of the power to deny political rights on account of 
color. The session also made it clear that Congress 
would control reconstruction, that the freed men 
would be protected by law against oppression, and 
that no state governments organized and controlled 
by disloyal men would be recognized. The Presi- 
dent's plan had failed, and the situation which con- 
fronted Congress at the beginning of the session 
had been changed for the better. To John Bright, 
on May 21, Sumner wrote : "I am sure there can 
be no tranquillity or security here until complete 
justice is rendered to the negro. ... I confess I 
can see nothing but ' agitate and convert ' until 
the franchise is extended." 

Besides these matters, other things also engaged 
Sumner's attention during this session. When the 
trial of Jefferson Davis was impending, a bill was 
introduced to remove the disqualification of jurors 
who had formed an opinion founded on common 
notoriety, public rumor, or newspaper statements. 
Sumner doubted the wisdom of this, saying : " I 
shrink from any change in the law to meet an indi- 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 319 

vidual case, even though of transcendent impor- 
tance." The bill was not passed. On the legal 
question whether a senator could be elected by a 
plurality of the votes cast in the joint assembly of 
a state legislature, he argued that a majority was 
necessary ; and he contended that on this question 
the senator whose title to a seat was involved could 
not vote. In these positions Fessenden supported 
him. 

He spoke on the subject of relieving the Supreme 
Court from the undue accumulation of cases ; he 
discussed the power of Congress to establish quaran- 
tine regulations ; he urged with success an amend- 
ment to the consular and diplomatic appropriation 
bills giving a higher rank to our foreign ministers ; 
he reported from a special committee bills to au- 
thorize the metric system of weights and measures, 
and supported them with a careful and instructive 
speech ; and he did his best to prevent the contract 
with Vinnie Ream for a statue of Mr. Lincoln. 
His speeches on this question were sensible and 
direct, and the statue, which he failed to prevent, 
stands a monumental proof of his wisdom. As he 
said, the artist might as well have contracted " to 
furnish an epic poem or the draft of a bankrupt 
bill." 

At the very end of the session the House passed, 
unanimously, a bill amending our neutrality laws. 
It was dictated by hostility to England, and it re- 
pealed the provisions against the fitting out in this 
country of military expeditions against nations 



320 CHARLES SUMNER 

with which the United States was at peace. In 
the Senate Sumner had it sent to his committee, 
resolved to let it sleep there. Some of its friends 
decided to move that the committee be discharged, 
whereupon Sumner armed himself with books and 
kept his seat from seven at night till seven in the 
morning on the last night of the session, that no 
advantage might be taken of his absence. At 
eleven in the morning the motion to take up the 
bill was made, but Sumner announced that he 
should speak for the rest of the session, and the 
motion was not pressed. He was determined that 
no provocation should induce this nation to aban- 
don the true position of a neutral ; and in the same 
spirit he carried a bill through the Senate to pay 
an award made to a British subject, saying that 
" our own country should be kept firm and constant 
in the attitude of justice." While Sumner was 
at the head of the committee on foreign relations 
our peace was not to be disturbed by any hasty 
or ill-considered legislation, and his countrymen 
had come to rely upon him. 

It is not strange that we find him writing to Mr. 
Bright in May : " Curiously, I too have fallen 
into the doctor's hands. He finds my brain and 
nervous system overtaxed ; and, suffering from my 
original injuries as a predisposing cause, I long 
for rest, and yet every day I grind in my mill." 
When we consider all that he did, it is only won- 
derful that he did not suffer more. 

As Sumner was afterward charged with allow- 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 321 

ing his personal feeling to interfere with the con- 
duct of public business, it is interesting to note 
that, though he thought Seward largely responsible 
for the President's course, his personal relations 
with his old associate remained undisturbed during 
the whole struggle between Congress and the Pre- 
sident, and until Sumner's death. /This enabled 
him quietly to stifle some rather extraordinary j^ro- 
positions of Seward's, such as an attack on Ecua- 
dor for failing to pay an award promptly. 

The feeling at this time upon the tariff, since a 
great issue, is thus stated in a letter to Mr. Bright 
on May 21, 1866 : " On protection and free trade 
there does not seem to be any general feeling. The 
question will be settled for some time by the neces- 
sities of our position without much reference to 
principles. My own people, originally strong pro- 
tectionists, are silent now. It is Pennsylvania 
which is clamorous, and the balance of parties in 
this important State makes the question one of 
political power." This is a succinct statement of 
a great historical truth. 

After the adjournment the President, in a series 
of absurd and intemperate speeches made appar- 
ently in the hope of securing popular support at 
the autumn elections, violently attacked Congress 
and its policy, and charged it with endeavoring 
" to prevent the restoration of peace, harmony, and 
union," calling it a body " hanging on the verge of 
the government, as it were, a body called, or which 
assumes to be, the Congress of the United States, 



322 CHARLES SUMNER 

while in fact it is a congress of only a part of the 
States." Then followed his extraordinary elec- 
tioneering tour, described in the political slang of 
the day as " swinging round the circle," from a 
phrase used in one of his speeches. His conduct 
and language were so indecent and so unworthy of 
his high office that later they were made one of 
the grounds for his impeachment. 

Thus the issue was made very clear. On the 
one hand the policy of the President was to admit 
the Southern States, with the leaders of secession 
in control, and with loyal men, white and black, 
substantially at their mercy, — the whites because 
they were in a hopeless minority among a bitterly 
hostile population, the blacks because they were 
entirely without political power. To sustain his 
policy the President exerted all his prerogatives ; 
by pardons he restored prominent Confederates 
to power, and by removals and appointments he 
used the whole patronage of the government to 
build up a party which should support him. Thus 
encouraged, the governments established by him 
in the South made no concealment of their bitter 
feeling toward the North, nor of their determina- 
tion to keep the colored race, deprived of civil 
and political rights, in a state of vassalage hardly 
distinguishable from slavery. Their legislation 
as to the negroes was barbarous, and their spirit 
was proved by a series of outrages which kept 
this unhappy race in abject terror. On the other 
hand Congress and the party of which Sumner 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 323 

was the most prominent leader were determined 
that there should be no reconstruction, unless the 
civil and political rights of loyal men in the South 
were established beyond possible doubt, and that 
the supporters of secession should not be admitted 
to office or power until they had become loyal in 
fact as well as in name. The whole result of the 
civil war, the whole future of the country were 
at stake, and upon the question between the oppos- 
ing policies the autumn campaign was fought. 

During this campaign Sumner spoke in Boston. 
He stated the issue clearly, pointing out that the 
President denied to Congress and claimed for him- 
self the whole power to legislate upon the question 
of reconstruction. He dwelt upon the vices of the 
President's policy, showed its deplorable results in 
the actual condition of the South, repeated the 
arguments in favor of a reconstruction which should 
be real and permanent, and insisted that the fun- 
damental conditions of reunion were "emancipa- 
tion, enfranchisement, equality, and education," 
which it was the duty of Congress to impose, thus 
insuring the results of the war and proper security 
for the future. He spoke of the President's weak- 
ness, held him responsible for the death of colored 
men recently slain at Memphis, New Orleans, and 
elsewhere, and placed him next to Jefferson Davis /> 
as the country's " worst enemy." 

Some two weeks later Mr. Sumner was married 
to Mrs. Hooper, a lady then twenty-eight years of 
age, and a daughter-in-law of Samuel Hooper, a 



324 CHARLES SUMNER 

representative in Congress from Boston. His mar- 
riage prevented his taking any further part in the 
campaign, and opened to him a prospect of great 
happiness. These hopes were disappointed, and 
his brief married life ended in a separation, fol- 
lowed later by a divorce procured by him. In a 
biography which deals only with Mr. Sumner as 
a statesman it is not necessary to do more than 
mention these facts. 

The second session of the Thirty-ninth Congress 
met on December 3, 1866. The elections had re- 
sulted in Republican victories, and the policy of the 
President had been condemned. His opponents 
returned fully assured of popular support, and 
with ample power to adopt any measure which 
their judgment approved. On the third day of the 
session Sumner, according to his practice, pre- 
sented his views on reconstruction in the form of 
resolutions. These asserted the power and duty 
of Congress to control reconstruction, and insisted 
that in establishing a new republican government 
" Congress must follow implicitly the definition 
supplied by the Declaration of Independence," 
and, " after excluding all disloyal persons, take 
care that new governments are founded on the two 
fundamental truths therein contained : first, that 
all men are equal in rights ; and secondly, that all 
just government stands only on the consent of the 
governed." He had the satisfaction at this session 
of seeing these doctrines adopted. His persistence, 
as before and afterwards, was finally rewarded, and 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 325 

impartial suffrage became the accepted principle of 
his party. 

The first step was taken when, on December 13, 
1866, a bill giving the suffrage to colored men in 
the District of Columbia passed the Senate. Sum- 
ner said nothing until the third day of the debate, 
when he explained briefly why he voted against 
an amendment giving women the suffrage, and 
against another imposing an educational qualifica- 
tion. Of the first he said : " That question I leave 
untouched, contenting myself with the remark that 
it is obviously the great question of the future, — 
at least one of the great questions, — which will be 
easily settled whenever the women in any consid- 
erable proportion insist that it shall be settled," 
an observation fraught with practical wisdom. Of 
the second: "In voting against an educational 
test, I do not mean to say that under other circum- 
stances such test may not be proper. But I am 
against it now." His reason was thus stated: 
" To my mind nothing is clearer than the present 
necessity of suffrage for all colored persons in 
the disorganized States. It will not be enough if 
you give it to those who read and write ; you will 
not in this way acquire the voting force needed 
there for the protection of the Unionists, whether 
white or black." This bill passed the House, was 
vetoed, and passed over the veto. 

The next day Mr. Wade moved to take up the 
bill for the admission of Nebraska, which had failed 
at the last session. Sumner again opposed it, be- 



326 CHARLES SUMNER 

cause the proposed constitution gave only white 
men the right to vote. Gratz Brown offered the 
proviso which Sumner had offered at the previous 
session, and in the debate some of his Republi- 
can associates, impatient at Sumner's opposition, 
became quite angry. Sumner in reply was cour- 
teous and gentle, but inflexible in his resolution 
that no new State should be admitted " with the 
word ' white ' in its constitution." " It passes my 
comprehension," he said, " how we can require 
equal rights in the rebel States, when we deliber- 
ately sanction the denial of equal rights in a new 
State completely within our jurisdiction and about 
to be fashioned by our hands." Some Republi- 
cans wished the State admitted to strengthen the 
party in the Senate, and various reasons were 
given for the inconsistency which Sumner pointed 
out, such as the insignificant number of negroes in 
Nebraska, and the fact that the enabling act under 
which Nebraska had been organized as a State did 
not require impartial suffrage. The debate lasted 
several days until interrupted by the holiday recess, 
during which Sumner stirred up much opposition 
by letters. When the discussion was resumed an 
amendment, offered by Mr. Edmunds, was adopted, 
making the act take effect upon the fundamental 
condition that there should be "no abridgment or 
denial of the exercise of the elective franchise or 
of any other right to any person by reason of race 
or color, excepting Indians not taxed." The bill 
passed the Senate on January 9, was amended in 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 327 

the House by requiring the assent of the Nebraska 
legislature, and became a law after a veto. The 
bill to admit Colorado was amended by adding the 
same proviso, and was passed without debate. 

On the next day the Senate passed a bill, already 
passed by the House, forbidding the denial of suf- 
frage in the Territories on account of race or color. 
Thus another step was taken and Congress again 
adopted Sumner's view. The final battle occurred 
when a bill " to provide for the more efficient gov- 
ernment of the insurrectionary States " passed the 
House and was laid before the Senate. This cre- 
ated five military districts in the South without 
any requirement as to suffrage and with no exclu- 
sion of those who had supported the Confederacy. 
The Senate began the discussion on February 15, 
1867, when great differences of opinion were de- 
veloped. What followed was thus narrated by 
Sumner to Bright : — 

" I do not know that I have mentioned to you 
how the requirements of universal suffrage in the 
new constitutions came to be readjusted in our 
reconstruction bill. The bill as it came from the 
House was simply a military bill. In the Senate 
several amendments were moved in the nature of 
conditions of restoration. I did not take much in- 
terest in them, as I preferred delay, and therefore 
was content with anything that secured this, be- 
lieving that Congress must ultimately come to the 
true ground. In the confusion which ensued a cau- 
cus of Republican senators was called. Then Mr. 



328 CHARLES SUMNER 

Sherman moved that all the pending propositions 
be referred to a committee of seven. Of this com- 
mittee he was chairman ; I was a member. In the 
committee I insisted that the existing governments 
should be declared invalid; adopted. Then that 
the States in question be designated simply ' rebel 
States ; ' adopted. Then that in the new constitu- 
tions there should be no exclusion from suffrage on 
account of color. This was voted down ; only one 
other member of the committee sustaining me, Mr. 
Sherman being strongly averse. When the com- 
mittee reported their bill to the caucus, I stated my 
objections and moved my amendment in an enlarged 
form, to the effect that in the new constitutions all 
citizens with a proper residence should be voters. 
In moving it I simply said that it was in our power 
to decide this question, and to supersede its discus- 
sion in the Southern States ; that if we did not de- 
cide it every State and village between here and the 
Rio Grande would be agitated by it. It was dinner 
time and there was impatience for a vote, which was 
by the ayes, standing and being counted, and then 
the noes. There were two counts, seventeen ayes 
to fifteen noes ; so this important requirement was 
adopted. Mr. Sherman, as chairman of the com- 
mittee, was directed to move the amended bill as 
a substitute for the pending measure, and it was 
passed by the usual Republican majority. That 
evening in caucus some few saw the magnitude of 
the act, and there was corresponding exultation. 
Wilson wished to dance with somebody. I have 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 329 

given you this narrative because it concerns an 
important event, and will show you how business 
with us is sometimes conducted." 

The bill was passed after an all-night session at 
an early hour in the morning, and finding its pas- 
sage sure, Sumner, tired out, left before the vote. 

Thus was won the great battle for equal rights. 
It is interesting in reading the debates on this and 
other questions of reconstruction to observe that, 
though they were often hot and not infrequently 
acrimonious, the differences were those of honest 
men. His oj>ponents were often exasperated by 
Sumner's persistence and his somewhat tedious re- 
iteration of arguments drawn from the principles 
of our government ; but no one can doubt their 
sincerity. At no period in the history of our gov- 
ernment have the debates in Congress been con- 
ducted upon a higher plane or been less marred 
by the kind of argument known as " buncombe," 
than when Sumner, Fessenden, Grimes, Trumbull, 
and their associates were seeking to settle the 
questions growing out of the civil war. 

Ever on the watch against any encroachment 
upon liberty, Sumner at this session called atten- 
tion to the system of peonage in New Mexico, and 
a bill to abolish and forever prohibit it was passed. 

After the question of suffrage was decided, the 
most important act of the session was the Tenure of 
Office law. The President had used the offices so 
openly to buy support, to punish his opponents and 
reward his friends, that Congress felt it necessary 



330 CHARLES SUMNER 

to check the abuse. To this end a bill was reported 
which required the consent of the Senate to the 
removal of any officer whose appointment was sub- 
ject to confirmation. It gave the President, during 
the recess, power to suspend such officers, but 
made it his duty to give his reasons to the Senate 
at its next session, when, if the Senate failed to 
concur, the officer was reinstated. Sumner tried 
to make it more sweeping, by providing that the 
consent of the Senate should be necessary to the 
appointment of a large number of officers, where it 
was not required by existing law, and by limiting 
the terms of such officers appointed after July 1, 
1866. He contended that these subordinates were 
as much entitled to protection as were those to 
whom the bill applied, and that the additional 
labor imposed upon the Senate was not to be 
weighed against the duty of preventing injustice. 
He urged his amendment persistently, but was de- 
feated. In one of his speeches he said : — 

" I return, then, to my proposition, that the duty 
of the hour is protection to the loyal and patriotic 
citizen. But when I have said this, I have not 
completed the proposition. You may ask, Protec- 
tion against whom ? I answer plainly, Against the 
President of the United States. There, sir, is the 
duty of the hour. . . . There was no such duty on 
our fathers, there was no such duty on recent pre- 
decessors in this chamber, because there was no 
President of the United States who had become 
the enemy of his country." For these words he 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 331 

was called to order, but lie insisted upon his lan- 
guage and the point of order was overruled. Later 
he used yet more pointed language : " Do not for- 
get that we stand face to face with an enormous 
and malignant usurper, through whom the Eepublic 
is imperiled, — that Republic which, according to 
our oaths of office, we are bound to save from all 
harm." Mr. Reverdy Johnson, in reply, suggested 
that this expression of opinion disqualified Sumner 
to sit on any impeachment of the President; but 
Sumner repudiated this idea at once, saying : 
" What right have I to know that the President is 
to be impeached ? How can I know it ? And let 
me add, even if I could know it, there can be no 
reason in that why I should not argue the measure 
directly before the Senate, and present such con- 
siderations as seem to me proper, founded on the 
misconduct of that officer." It was quite apparent 
already that the contest between President and 
Congress might result in extreme measures. 

Mr. Sumner supported a proposed amendment 
to the Constitution, making the term of the presi- 
dent and vice-president six years, and making the 
president ineligible for reelection. He wished even 
to abolish the electoral college for reasons thus 
stated : — 

" Such an amendment would give every indi- 
vidual voter, wherever he might be, a positive 
weight in the election. It would give minorities 
in distant States an opportunity of being heard in 
determining who shall be chief magistrate. Now 



332 CHARLES SUMNER 

they are of no consequence. ... I know nothing 
that would contribute more to bring all the people 
. . . into one united whole, than to make the Pre- 
sident directly eligible by their votes." 

In a letter to W. W. Story during this session, 
Sumner expressed his views of the political situa- 
tion : — 

" Congress is doing pretty well ; every step is 
forward. The next Congress, which will probably 
meet on the 4th of March, will be still better in- 
spired. All that is possible will be done to limit 
the executive power. It is possible that the Presi- 
dent may be impeached. If we go forward and 
supersede the sham governments set up in the rebel 
States, we encounter the appointing power of the 
President, who would put in office men who sym- 
pathize with him. It is this consideration which 
makes ardent representatives say that he must be 
removed. Should this be attempted, a new ques- 
tion will be presented." 

The expiring Congress, feeling it unsafe to leave 
the President un watched during the usual recess, 
provided that the new Congress should meet on 
March 4, and the session beginning on that day 
lasted till the 30th of the month. On March 7 
Mr. Sumner presented the usual resolutions em- 
bodying his views as to the work which demanded 
the attention of Congress. His requirements were : 
the vacation of the existing state governments ; the 
creation of provisional governments, from which 
every disloyal influence should be excluded; the 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 333 

establishment of free public schools ; and measures 
to secure a piece of land for every head of a family 
among the freedmen. A few days later he moved 
the consideration of the resolutions and a debate 
ensued, in which Sherman, Fessenden, Freling- 
huysen, and other Republicans indicated dissent. 
Sumner felt that without education or land the 
freedmen would be at the mercy of their former 
masters, and he thought it of the first importance 
to provide the machinery for the creation of new 
state governments. He urged his resolutions ear- 
nestly and claimed that the power to give the negroes 
land was found in the necessity of the case. He 
failed to point out any constitutional way in which 
Congress could take land from its owners and give 
it to the freedmen, and it is not surprising that his 
resolutions never came to a vote. In the heat of 
argument he reminded his opponents that they had 
differed from him before and had insisted that steps 
were unconstitutional or impossible which they had 
afterward supported. This line of argument was 
made more irritating by his Democratic opponents, 
who taunted the Republicans with the fact that 
what he proposed was always eventually done. 
Perhaps the experience to which they alluded made 
him more impatient than hitherto, for as a rule 
he was singularly courteous in debate. His criti- 
cism was a serious matter to less known men, backed 
as he was by a strong body of supporters all over 
the country who followed his lead implicitly, and 
it is not stransre that some of those whom he con- 



334 CHARLES SUMNER 

demned were aggrieved by his tone, and that their 
resentment weakened his position in the Senate. 
It is probable that dislike, created in these days of 
his domination, helped his removal from the com- 
mittee on foreign relations a few years later. 

A bill to amend the reconstruction act was in- 
troduced almost as soon as the new Congress met, 
and in the debate Sumner insisted that a majority 
of the registered voters in each State should vote 
on the question of holding a convention, and that 
voting at all popular elections should be by ballot. 
The latter proposition was defeated. He himself 
offered as an amendment the proviso : " That the 
Constitution shall require the legislature to estab- 
lish and sustain a system of public schools open to 
all without distinction of race or color." 

By making it a condition that no seceded State 
should be admitted whose Constitution did not con- 
tain this clause, he hoped to secure public and im- 
partial education in the South. He thought that 
the power under which all other conditions were 
imposed warranted this one, and of its wisdom and 
necessity he entertained no doubt. The Senate 
divided equally upon his amendment and it was lost, 
to his bitter disappointment. In advocating it he 
explained his plan of reconstruction, which was to 
make the States adopt constitutions which would 
insure good government and equal rights. His 
policy was far-reaching and deserved success. In 
following him so far as to require impartial suf- 
frage, Congress was doubtless influenced by the 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 335 

necessity of creating a loyal electorate, and secur- 
ing the lives, the rights, and the property of loyal 
men, white and black. 

In the light of all that has happened since, many 
think the policy unwise which at once changed the 
slaves into citizens. No one should criticise the 
legislation adopted unless he has studied the con- 
dition of the Southern States at the close of the 
war, and has realized the difficulties which beset 
any course. It is easy to point out the evils which 
negro suffrage caused, but far greater evils would 
probably have occurred had negro suffrage been 
refused. A community just conquered, demoralized 
by a long war, prostrated by the loss of property 
and lives, sullen, disloyal, and filled with hatred 
and contempt for the new freedmen and their own 
loyal white neighbors, was a hotbed in which trouble 
of every kind found root easily and grew rapidly. 
No law could prevent it. Only the slow passage of 
years, the death of those too old to learn, the birth 
of a new generation, the replacement of men born 
slaves by men born free, could make these commu- 
nities peaceful and prosperous. Friction between 
the two races in their new relation was inevitable. 

It was clear that the slavery question would never 
be settled until the negroes were recognized as citi- 
zens, equal before the law with their white neigh- 
bors. Had President Johnson's reconstruction pre- 
vailed, they would have remained virtually slaves. 
The laws passed by his legislatures were skillfully 
devised to secure this result, and the consequence 



336 CHARLES SUMNER 

would have been disorder and bloodshed. Politi- 
cians needing votes would have sought to get them 
by giving the suffrage to the negroes, and they 
would have offered in this way a constant tempta- 
tion to agitators. It was better to cut deep at 
once, to extirpate the cancer utterly, and having 
done all that law could do by giving the freedmen 
equal rights, to let them gradually learn, as they 
must, how to use them. No people can learn 
self-government while governed by others. Years 
were needed more than laws. It was to hasten 
this process that Sumner insisted on education, and 
he seems wiser than his opponents. His terms 
would not have irritated the masters more than 
those imposed, while they would have given the 
freedmen the one thing needed to fit them for their 
places as citizens. 

The conditions which the war left, no matter what 
the legislation, required as representatives of the 
government the most honest, wise, and patient men 
that could be obtained ; men whom freedmen and 
masters could trust and respect, and who could 
understand and deal considerately, if firmly, with 
a stricken community. Instead the government 
was represented by mere adventurers, ignorant, 
foolish, corrupt, and wholly unfitted for their work. 
No matter what the policy, it must fail if admin- 
istered by such men. Without brains and charac- 
ter no form of government is good. With these 
absent and every element of disorder present, it is 
not strange that the reconstructed States were 



STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 337 

unhappy. But in considering the course of Sum- 
ner and his associates, we may well pause before 
we attribute to a policy, in itself just, evils which 
sprang inevitably from the condition of the com- 
munity, and which were increased by the men who 
were placed in power during reconstruction. 

This first session of the Fortieth Congress ad- 
journed on March 30, but before the resolution 
of adjournment was adopted there was a struggle 
between those who wished to adjourn till the fol- 
lowing December and those who were afraid to 
trust the President so long. Among the latter was 
Sumner, who urged the importance of not leaving 
the loyal men without protection, and spoke of the 
President as follows : — 

"You must not forget that the President is a 
bad man, the author of incalculable woe to his 
country, and especially to that part which, being 
most tried by war, most needed kindly care. 
Search history, and I am sure you will find no 
elected ruler who, during the same short time, has 
done so much mischief to his country. He stands 
alone in bad eminence." 

Repeated differences between the houses resulted 
in adjournment till the first Wednesday in July, 
when, in the absence of a quorum, the presiding 
officers were to adjourn their respective houses 
without day. 




CHAPTER XX 

ALASKA : THE ALABAMA CLAIMS : THE IMPEACH- 
MENT 

The Senate held a special session for executive 
business from the 1st to the 20th of April, at which 
the treaty for the purchase of Alaska was ratified. 
Sumner first learned of the treaty late in the even- 
ing of Friday, March 29, at the State Department. 
It was signed on the morning of the 30th and on 
the same day it was sent to the Senate. The com- 
mittee on foreign relations reported it favorably, 
Mr. Fessenden alone dissenting. On April 9 
Sumner spoke for three hours in favor of rati- 
fication and the treaty was ratified, only Mr. Fes- 
senden and Mr. Morrill voting in the negative. 
The injunction of secrecy was removed, and Sumner 
was requested to write out his speech, which had 
been made from scanty notes. After the adjourn- 
ment he devoted some six weeks to informing 
himself and to amplifying his speech, which when 
finished was a miracle of information on the sub- 
ject of Alaska, gathered from sources of every 
kind, of which many were in foreign languages, 
and some in Russian were translated for his use. 
It was he who gave the name of Alaska to the 



ALASKA 339 

whole territory. He wrote to John Bright on 
April 16, 1867 : — 

" The Russian treaty tried me severely ; ab- 
stractedly I am against further accessions of terri- 
tory, unless by the free choice of the inhabitants. 
But this question was perplexed by considerations 
of politics and comity and the engagements already 
entered into by the government. I hesitated to 
take the responsibility of defeating it." 

In a note to the speech as published in his works 
he says : " Mr. Sumner was controlled less by 
desire for more territory than by a sense of the 
amity of Russia, manifested especially during our 
recent troubles, and by an unwillingness to miss 
the opportunity of dismissing another European 
sovereign from our continent, predestined, as he 
believed, to become the broad, undivided home of 
the American people." 

His influence doubtless carried the treaty ; or, to 
speak more accurately, his opposition would have 
killed it. In his speech he did not allude to the 
doubts of which he wrote to Mr. Bright, but spoke 
of the cession as an extension of republican insti- 
tutions. He was doubtless satisfied by the fact 
that there was practically no population to consult. 
To use his own words : " The immense country is 
without form and without light, without activity 
and without progress. ... Its life is solitary and 
feeble. Its settlements are only encampments or 
lodges." He estimated the number of Russians 
and Creoles at about 2500, the number of abori- 



340 CHARLES SUMNER 

gines within the jurisdiction of the Fur Company 
at about 8000, and of those outside at between 
40,000 and 50,000, and these he compared to our 
Indians. It was clearly impossible to ask or obtain 
the consent of so insignificant and scattered a pop- 
ulation, with no national life and no relation to 
government. He, however, took occasion to guard 
against further annexation, saying : — 

" This treaty must not be a precedent for a sys- 
tem of indiscriminate and costly annexation. Sin- 
cerely believing that republican institutions under 
the primacy of the United States must embrace 
this whole continent, ... I cannot disguise my 
anxiety that every stage in our predestined future 
shall be by natural processes, without war, and I 
would add even without purchase. There is no 
territorial aggrandizement worth the price of blood. 
Only under peculiar circumstances can it become 
the subject of pecuniary contract. Our triumph 
should be by growth and organic expansion in 
obedience to ' preestablished harmony,' recognizing 
always the will of those who are to become our 
fellow citizens. All this must be easy, if we are 
only true to ourselves." 

As the pressure of domestic difficulties was 
gradually relieved, the questions growing out of 
England's course during the war began to receive 
attention, and negotiations were begun looking to 
a settlement. The English government saw its 
mistake, and aware of the latent exasperation in 
the United States became anxious to remove a 



THE ALABAMA CLAIMS 341 

source of danger to international peace. Sumner's 
speeches during the war had made perfectly appar- 
ent the grounds of our feeling, but England did 
not realize that we proposed to make claims as a 
nation on account of losses caused by her action. 

Sumner took a deep interest in this question 
and his attitude upon it never changed. His cor- 
respondence shows the development of the contro- 
versy. Thus he wrote to Mr. Bright on August 8, 
1865 : " General Grant was here last week. . . . 
He cared little whether England paid ' our little 
bill ' or not ; upon the whole, he would rather she 
would not, as that would leave the precedent of 
her conduct in full force for us to follow, and he 
wished it understood that we should follow it. He 
thought that we should make more out of the 
' precedent ' than out of the ' bill,' and that Boston 
especially would gain. ... I need not say that I 
dissented from his policy most resolutely. I told 
him that our true object should be to bring the two 
countries into relations of harmony and good-will ; 
that this could not be done if one nation was watch- 
ing an opportunity to strike, and the other was 
standing on guard ; that the truest statesmanship 
was to remove all questions, and to that end I 
wished the precedent rejected." 

On December 25, 1865, he wrote to George Be- 
mis : " Sir F. Bruce, at dinner Saturday evening, 
said to me that England would fight before she 
would pay a dollar or consent to arbitration." 

On December 24, 1866, almost exactly one year 



342 CHARLES SUMNER 

after saying that England would never arbitrate, 
Sir F. Bruce told Sumner that he had left with 
Seward a letter from Lord Stanley "accepting 
arbitration in the ' Alabama ' case," and asked 
whether this country would, upon this basis, " pro- 
ceed to a general settlement of reciprocity, fisher- 
ies, and everything else." 

On May 27, 1867, Sumner wrote to Mr. Bright : 
" I have just perused the correspondence between 
Mr. Seward and Lord Stanley on the ' Alabama ' 
claims. There is a deadlock, the legacy of Lord 
Russell. The British government offers arbitra- 
tion, but insists upon excluding the fundamental 
question on which our claims rest — namely, the 
right, morally and legally, of the recognition of 
the rebels as belligerents on the ocean. We are 
willing to arbitrate, provided the whole case is 
submitted. I think that the correspondence, when 
published, will rally the whole country. . . . Thus 
far I have avoided saying anything on this ques- 
tion in the Senate, because I was anxious to secure 
time for an amicable adjustment. The next Con- 
gress will debate it fully, unless meanwhile in some 
way it is settled." 

Sumner took no pains in his correspondence to 
disguise the views which he was soon to express 
publicly. 

Congress convened in July, 1867, in accordance 
with the resolution of the last session. The Re- 
publican senators in caucus voted to do no business 
during this session except such as was necessary to 



THE ALABAMA CLAIMS 343 

secure the execution of the reconstruction laws 
already passed. Their decision was embodied in a 
rule of the Senate and prevented Mr. Sumner from 
bringing forward legislation on the subject of suf- 
frage and other measures which he had much at 
heart. Sumner vigorously opposed the adoj)tion 
of the rule, insisting that there was public busi- 
ness of great importance which the Senate had no 
right to neglect, and repudiating the claim that he 
was bound as a senator by the decision of the Re- 
publican caucuses. His opposition was unavail- 
ing, but his argument for individual independence 
deserves attention. He justly characterized the 
caucus as " a meeting of friends for consultation 
and harmony, where each gives up something with 
a view to a common result, but no man gives up a 
principle, no man gives up anything vital." The 
opposing view makes the caucus a convenient in- 
strument by which the minority of a legislative 
body controls the majority, and dominates the con- 
science and judgment of the best members. 

The principal measure of the session was a bill 
to strengthen the reconstruction laws and to limit 
the power of the President. When this bill was 
under discussion, Mr. Sumner offered an amend- 
ment, that " every constitution in the rebel States 
shall require the legislature to establish and main- 
tain a system of public schools open to all without 
distinction of race or color." This was excluded 
under the rule. He offered another amendment, 
" that no person shall be disqualified as member of 



344 CHARLES SUMNER 

any board of registration by reason of race or 
color." In advocating this he expressed his belief 
that under the existing law a colored person might 
be a senator of the United States. This amend- 
ment was rejected by a tie vote, but at a later stage 
of the bill was adopted. Other amendments were 
excluded under the rule. 

He endeavored to obtain consideration for a bill, 
introduced by him at the last session, to secure the 
franchise to colored citizens all over the country, 
which he had advocated by letter during the recess. 
Again the rule proved a barrier, nor would the 
Senate suspend it on his motion. He succeeded, 
however, by unanimous consent, in bringing up 
his bill to prevent the exclusion of any person 
from office in the District of Columbia on account 
of race or color, and, amended in form, this was 
passed. The President refused to sign it, and as 
Congress adjourned before the expiration of ten 
days from its passage it failed to become a- law. 
It was again brought forward by Mr. Sumner and 
passed at the December session, but by the refusal 
of the President to sign it and the adjournment of 
Congress for the holidays, it again failed. It had 
a like experience once more in the session which 
ended March 4, 1869, but it finally became a law 
by the signature of President Grant. At every 
stage of its checkered career Mr. Sumner was its 
sponsor and persistent advocate. An attempt by 
him on July 19, 1867, to strike the word " white " 
from the naturalization laws was referred to a com- 



THE ALABAMA CLAIMS 345 

mittee, and not reported till February, 1869, too 
late for consideration. 

The adjourned session of Congress met on No- 
vember 21, and during the holiday recess Sumner 
moved into his new house on the corner of Vermont 
Avenue and Lafayette Square, which was his home 
till his death. He gathered here the books, auto- 
graphs, and works of art which he had collected 
during his life, and while he was in Washington 
entertained freely. He was a most agreeable host, 
and at his table were to be met the most interest- 
ing men of the time. Here, for example, Dickens 
met his great admirer Stanton, who paid him a 
high compliment when he said : " During the war 
I always kept ' Pickwick ' under my pillow. Often 
and often I went to bed with my mind so full of 
anxiety after bad news of battles or campaigns 
that sleep seemed impossible, but two chapters of 
' Pickwick ' never failed to divert my thoughts so 
that I could sleep, and it was the only book in 
the language that would do it." Seward was a 
frequent guest; and, unmindful of his previous 
misadventures as a prophet, tempted fate again by 
saying : "In thirty years Mexico will be the cap- 
ital of the United States." Here Mr. Evarts, 
coming to dinner on Sunday, after a day's work 
upon the answer of the President to the articles 
of impeachment, excused his breach of the com- 
mandment by saying : " Is it not written that if 
thine ass falleth into a pit, it is lawful to pull him 
out on the Sabbath day ? " Here Motley was a 



346 CHARLES SUMNER 

frequent guest while a candidate for the English 
mission. Here the diplomatic corps were constantly 
welcomed, and political opponents like Caleb Crush- 
ing and William Beach Lawrence engaged in liter- 
ary and diplomatic discussion. Here Emerson 
and Agassiz made him visits. It was a pleasant 
house, and, when he first occupied it, he was at the 
very height of his reputation and power on both 
sides of the ocean. 

In the brief session which began on November 21, 
little was done ; but it is amusing to find Sumner 
opposing a resolution to fix the final adjournment 
one half hour before the beginning of the regular 
session, on the ground that in that half hour the 
President might make appointments and suspen- 
sions which, under the Tenure-of-office Act, might 
stand till the close of the next session. 

The regular session of Congress began on Decem- 
ber 2, 1867, and was at first uneventful. In Febru- 
ary Sumner opposed the admission of Mr. Thomas, 
senator-elect from Maryland, because he had per- 
mitted and aided his minor son to join the Con- 
federate army, which was such aid to the rebellion 
as should prevent his taking the oath of office. It 
was a strict construction of the law, but it pre- 
vailed. 

In August the President had removed Secre- 
tary Stanton, whose presence in the Cabinet was 
regarded by the Republican leaders as a great 
safeguard. The feeling against the President had 
been gathering force for some time, and now led 



THE IMPEACHMENT M7 

his opponents in the House to propose his im- 
peachment, but the House would not direct it. On 
January 13, 1868, the Senate refused to concur 
in the suspension of Stanton, and on February 21 
the President removed him in direct violation of 
the Tenure-of-office Act. Mr. Stanton refused to 
go, acting upon the advice, among others, of Sum- 
ner, who, hearing of the President's action, wrote 
from his desk in the Senate : " Stick, Stanton, 
stick." The President, after trying in vain to 
make General Grant take the place, appointed 
General Lorenzo Thomas secretary of war ad 
interim. For a time it seemed that Mr. Stanton 
would be expelled by force, and that the President 
would obtain control of the army through a plastic 
person of his own choice. Congress was excited 
to immediate action, and on February 24 the 
House voted to present articles of impeachment. 
Thaddeus Stevens, advanced in years and feeble 
in health, but looking the ideal Roman, announced 
this action to the Senate with singular impressive- 
ness, as if he were discharging a sad duty, though 
it was a result for which he had long labored, and 
the element of personal triumph could not have 
been absent from his mind. 

The Senate began its sessions as a court of im- 
peachment on March 5, and from then until May 
11, when the final votes were taken, the trial was 
its chief business. The principal charge was the 
removal of Mr. Stanton, but some of Mr. John- 
son's scandalous and violent language in attacking 



348 CHARLES SUMNER 

Congress was made the ground of a distinct article. 
The examination of the witnesses was conducted 
mainly by General Butler for the prosecution, and 
by Mr. Evarts for the defense. The former lost 
his sense of proportion and, as he admitted, con- 
ducted himself as if he were trying a criminal case 
in a Middlesex County court room. He forgot 
that his success depended upon winning the doubt- 
ful senators like Fessenden, Trumbull, and Grimes, 
and these were alienated by his methods, while 
they were much impressed by the argument of 
Judge Curtis for the defense. The managers in- 
sisted that the proceeding was in its nature polit- 
ical, while the counsel who defended the President 
sought to make it absolutely judicial, and invoked 
the rules which would govern a trial that might 
result in the punishment of the offender and not 
merely in his removal from office. Remember- 
ing that the law provides adequate machinery for 
the punishment of offenders, while impeachment 
is designed to relieve the people from the dan- 
gers attending the abuse of official power, a strong 
argument may be made for the former view. It 
is the danger to the country, rather than the 
guilt of the defendant, which the prosecution must 
establish. The balance of power was held by 
three or four lawyers, who felt that they were sit- 
ting as judges and who tried the question of the 
President's guilt or innocence with strictness. The 
counsel for the defense addressed them in lan- 
guage which commanded their respect, while they 



THE IMPEACHMENT S49 

had no sympathy with the looser methods and theo- 
ries of the prosecution. It was training and tem- 
perament which separated these men from their 
associates and saved the President. 

This is not the place to describe the events of the 
trial, but no one who heard it can forget the won- 
derful impression which the brief argument of Mr. 
Groesbeck made upon the Senate and the audience. 
Beginning at noon, his voice an hour later had 
become so husky as to be almost inaudible. An 
earlier recess was taken on that account, and when 
he began again his voice gradually cleared, until 
during the last hour he addressed a crowded but 
absolutely still chamber. No senator wrote on 
his desk, no page was summoned, no conversation 
could be heard in gallery or cloak room, and a 
silence prevailed almost unknown in the Senate, 
while every one listened with rapt attention to each 
word that the speaker uttered. It was an oratori- 
cal feat which had no parallel at that trial, and 
few in the experience of the Senate. 

At the outset the question arose whether Senator 
Wade, the president pro tempore of the Senate, 
could take the oath as a member of the court of 
impeachment, since in the event of the President's 
conviction he would succeed to the office. Sumner 
showed that there was no authority for the objec- 
tion, and paid Mr. Wade this high compliment : — 

" Put in one scale these interests, so dear to the 
heart of the patriot, and in the other all the per- 
sonal temptations which have been imagined, and 



350 CHARLES SUMNER 

I cannot doubt that, if the senator from Ohio holds 
these scales, the latter will kick the beam." 

A few weeks later the chief justice, presiding, 
threw the casting vote, when the Senate was 
equally divided on some question of procedure or 
evidence. Sumner would not let this claim of 
right pass unchallenged, and argued that the right 
to " preside " gave no right to vote. He gathered 
copious authority in support of his contention, 
which he sustained also by comparison with the 
provision giving the vice-president the right to 
preside and give the casting vote ; at the same 
time he took occasion to speak most pleasantly of 
Chief Justice Chase. 

After the vote the different senators prepared 
their opinions upon the case, and Mr. Sumner 
stated his views at some length, taking the ground 
that the proceeding was a remedy against political 
offenders. He insisted that the acts charged were 
to be interpreted by the President's whole course 
in office, and that " if on any point you entertain 
doubts the benefit of those doubts must be given 
to your country," whose safety is the supreme law. 
Seeing clearly the danger to which all the great 
interests of the country were exposed while the 
President continued in office, he voted without 
hesitation for conviction, and while it is now clear 
that no especial harm was done during the brief 
remnant of Mr. Johnson's term, and many feel that 
a dangerous precedent was avoided, we may here- 
after find that a not less dangerous precedent was 



THE IMPEACHMENT 351 

established, and learn to consider the doctrine of 
Sumner the safer for the country. 

After the trial Congress returned to reconstruc- 
tion, and Sumner made a strong speech, repeating 
his argument in favor of the right to impose fun- 
damental conditions when States are admitted to 
the Union. Congress adopted this view, and a bill 
was passed admitting Arkansas upon the funda- 
mental condition that there should never be in the 
State any denial of suffrage or of any other right 
on account of race or color, except to " Indians not 
taxed." A few days later an act admitting North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Ala- 
bama, and Florida was passed, with fundamental 
conditions that they should not deprive " any citi- 
zen or class of citizens of the State of the right 
to vote by the constitution thereof," and should 
ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, and with some 
further requirements. The same policy was pur- 
sued with the other States, and in 1870 Virginia, 
Mississippi, and Texas were admitted upon similar 
fundamental conditions. 

By various letters at this time Sumner encour- 
aged the election of colored men to Congress, be- 
lieving that nothing could so effectually establish 
their absolute equality as citizens, and that such a 
conspicuous example was worth more than speeches 
or statutes. His advice was soon taken, and he 
had the pleasure of welcoming a colored senator 
from Mississippi. 



CHAPTER XXI 

FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION : FOREIGN RELATIONS 

The civil war left a legacy of debt and finan- 
cial disturbance which has been ever since a pro- 
lific source of trouble. During the year 1867 and 
early in 1868 the plan of paying the bonds of the 
United States in the demand notes called " green- 
backs " was supported by various politicians. Mr. 
Sherman, chairman of the Senate committee on 
finance, had maintained in the Senate the right to 
do this. In May, 1868, the Republican National 
Convention had passed a resolution in favor of 
paying all debts of the government "in the utmost 
good faith, . . . not only according to the letter, but 
to the spirit of the laws " under which they were 
contracted. This, however, like many another cam- 
paign declaration, was not too definite, and when 
a bill to fund the national debt came before the 
Senate Mr. Sumner on July 11, 1868, expressed 
his views fully. He stated as the two objects of 
our policy the reduction of taxes and the substitu- 
tion of specie for unconvertible paper, and claimed 
that these objects could only be attained by keeping 
the public faith "above all question or suspicion." 
From this impregnable ground he attacked the 



FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION 353 

propositions to tax the bonds, and to pay them in 
irredeemable paper, showing that both were clear 
violations of public faith. The speech was a wel- 
come reinforcement to the cause of public honesty, 
and increased Sumner's strength with conservative 
men. 

A few days after this speech a bill containing 
some extraordinary provisions came before the 
House. The recent triumph over the Confederate 
armies and our great military strength did not 
tend to foster discretion in Congress. Questions 
had arisen as to the effect of naturalization in this 
coimtry. Foreign governments took the ground 
that no one could, as against the country of his 
birth, assume a foreign citizenship, and upon this 
theory they arrested our naturalized citizens, held 
them to military service, and otherwise treated 
them as still their own subjects. It must be ad- 
mitted that then, as since, many of these natural- 
ized citizens were more interested in the affairs of 
their native land than in those of the United States, 
and that they used our citizenship only as a shield 
against the consequences of seditious enterprises. 
They were foreigners in feeling and conduct while 
successful in their plots, and became citizens of 
this country only when they failed. But the un- 
friendly course of European governments had left 
a feeling here which induced sympathy with their 
disaffected subjects and made many Americans will- 
ing to seize any pretext for aiding them. Promi- 
nent in this class were certain Irish Fenians, whose 



354 CHARLES SUMNER 

purposes were actively hostile to England. General 
Banks, the chairman of the committee on foreign 
affairs of the House, though he came into public 
life as a vigorous opponent of the foreigners and 
Catholics among us, now espoused their cause, and 
seemed bent on committing this country to a reck- 
less policy. He had carried through the House a 
bill which, as Sumner wrote to Mr. Bright, " was 
Seward's work," asserting the American doctrine 
that any man may assume a new citizenship and 
thereby dissolve his old allegiance. To this was 
added a section empowering the President, when 
any citizen was arrested by any foreign govern- 
ment in denial of this right, to suspend commercial 
relations with such government and to arrest and 
detain any citizen of such government found within 
our jurisdiction. 

Mr. Sumner reported a substitute for this pro- 
vision, directing the President, when any natural- 
ized citizen should be arrested, to report the cir- 
cumstance to Congress for its action, and taking 
from him all power of reprisal. He supported this 
in a speech exposing the absurdity and barbarism 
of the House bill, saying : — 

" Suppose the law is passed, and the authority 
conferred upon the President. Whom shall he 
seize ? What innocent foreigner ? What trustful 
traveler ? What honored guest ? It may be Mr. 
Dickens, or Mr. Trollope, or Rev. Newman Hall, 
or it may be some merchant here on business, guilt- 
less of any wrong and under the constant safeguard 






FOREIGN RELATIONS 355 

of the public faith. Permit me to say, sir, that, 
the moment you do this, you will cover the country 
with shame, of which the present bill will be the 
painful prelude." Mr. Conness, himself of Irish 
birth, in reply charged Sumner with indifference 
to the rights of foreign-born citizens who happened 
to be white and not black. But Sumner met the 
charge completely by recalling his position at the 
time of the Know-Nothing excitement, thereby well 
illustrating how he who resists the folly of the 
hour is sure to find in time that his course is vin- 
dicated and his influence increased. 

The bill had passed the House by a vote of 104 
to 4, men like Garfield, who had opposed it vigor- 
ously, voting for it. Eighty or more others did not 
vote. Sumner kept it in committee for two months 
and then led in opposing its monstrous provisions. 
The result was that his substitute was carried in 
the Senate by a vote of 30 to 7, though an amend- 
ment was passed against his opposition, which au- 
thorized the President to use all methods except 
war to effect the release of any American citizen 
unjustly arrested by a foreign government. These 
votes in House and Senate show the feeling of the 
hour, which Sumner resisted. Without this con- 
temporary record it would be impossible to believe 
that such a measure could pass the House of Re- 
presentatives. 

At this session treaties with Germany and Ba- 
varia were ratified which recognized our claim, 
and these were followed by like treaties with the 



356 CHARLES SUMNER 

other European powers, so that the rights of 
our naturalized citizens were established on a sure 
foundation. 

The Kepublican convention of Massachusetts 
unanimously nominated Sumner for reelection to 
the Senate, by a resolution which approved his 
course in the warmest language. This nomination 
was ratified by the legislature, and he was elected 
in the following January by an almost unanimous 
vote. After his nomination he made one speech, 
delivered at Cambridge, in which he stated the 
issue of the campaign thus : " Shall the men who 
saved the Republic continue to rule it, or shall it 
be handed over to rebels and their allies ? " and 
the statement was the only argument needed in 
those days. He insisted that the defeat of Grant 
meant the nullification of the reconstruction acts, 
declared by the Democratic convention to be " un- 
constitutional, revolutionary, and void." On the 
financial question he went further, and urged the 
possibility and the duty of resuming specie pay- 
ments on July 4, 1869. He repeated his argu- 
ment against any breach of the contract with the 
public creditor, and concluded with propositions 
that cannot too often be repeated : — 

" A republic is where every man has his due. 
Equality of rights is the standing promise of Na- 
ture to man. ... In harmony with the promise 
of Nature is the promise of our fathers, recorded 
in the Declaration of Independence. It is the two- 
fold promise; first, that all are equal in rights; 



FOREIGN RELATIONS 357 

and, secondly, that just government stands only on 
the consent of the governed, — being the two great 
political commandments on which hang all laws 
and constitutions. Keep these truly and you will 
keep all. Write them in your statutes ; write them 
in your hearts. This is the great and only final 
settlement of all existing questions." 

Sumner had taken no part in nominating Grant. 
From a statement published by Mr. Forney it would 
appear indeed that in November, 1867, he opposed 
his nomination, in a conference held to consider 
the situation, when General Babcock and other 
close friends of Grant favored it. Sumner doubted 
his qualities as a civil administrator, but the popu- 
lar feeling made the nomination inevitable, and 
Sumner did not publicly dissent. In November he 
wrote to Dr. Lieber : " Grant will be our President 
with infinite opportunities. I hope and believe he 
will be true to them." 

During the summer of 1868 President Johnson 
appointed Reverdy Johnson minister to England, 
and in a letter to Mr. Bright, Sumner thus spoke : — 
" He hopes to settle all outstanding questions. I 
think he will be successful on the naturalization 
question. But I do not see signs of accord on the 
other question." This passage is quoted because it 
was afterwards suggested that Sumner had misled 
Bright into thinking that Johnson fully represented 
the feeling in this country on the Alabama question. 

The last session of the Fortieth Congress began 
on December 7, 1868. 



358 CHARLES SUMNER 

The most important action at this session was 
the adoption by Congress of the Fifteenth Amend- 
ment. Although impartial suffrage had been re- 
quired in the Southern States by the fundamental 
conditions imposed on their readmission, it was 
deemed wise to secure it in the States which had 
not seceded, and to place the result of the war be- 
yond the reach of legislative action by constitutional 
amendment. Accordingly, after much discussion of 
the exact phraseology, the amendment was adopted 
by Congress on February 25, 1869. Its ratifica- 
tion by the States was announced a little more than 
a year later. 

To the policy of this amendment Mr. Sumner was 
strongly opposed. He was satisfied that Congress 
had power to secure impartial suffrage by legisla- 
tion, and he thought that to propose the amendment 
was to admit that the power did not exist. If after 
Congress had made this admission the States should 
fail to ratify the amendment, the opportunity to se- 
cure equal rights would be lost. He thought that 
the proposal therefore exposed the cause to great 
and unnecessary peril. He urged these views upon 
the Senate with great persistency, and he presented 
them again in a speech against the amendment, 
wherein he spoke with great sadness and strong 
feeling, seeming to consider that his opponents 
were defending wrong by throwing doubt upon the 
power of Congress under the Constitution. He 
failed to convince them, and their practical wisdom 
was proved by the ratification of the amendment, 



GRANT'S CABINET 359 

while his fears were not realized. In the result 
he rejoiced as heartily as any one. 

This was the session of Congress preceding 
the inauguration of a new administration, but the 
usual struggle over the new cabinet did not occur. 
General Grant, possibly from his experience in the 
army, had conceived a profound distrust of politi- 
cians, and at the outset evidently expected to con- 
duct his administration without consulting the lead- 
ers of the party which had elected him. He seemed 
to regard his Cabinet as his staff, and was governed 
largely by personal considerations in selecting it. 
Yet he soon came under the influence of politi- 
cians belonging to the very class which he at first 
distrusted, with results unfortunate alike to the 
country and to himself. Sumner's manners and 
methods never could have attracted Grant, and the 
attitude of the two men towards public questions 
was radically different even when they agreed in 
opinion. Sumner was suggested for secretary of 
state, but he never countenanced the idea. He 
felt, as he wrote to Dr. Lieber just after the elec- 
tion : " The headship of the first committee of the 
Senate is equal in position to anything in our gov- 
ernment under the President ; and it leaves to the 
senator great opportunities." 

General Grant never spoke to him on the sub- 
ject or consulted him about the Cabinet, though 
their relations were pleasant. Sumner was not, 
however, confident that Grant would be a success- 
ful president, and his doubts were shared by other 



360 CHARLES SUMNER 

leading statesmen. He wrote to Whittier on Feb- 
ruary 26, 1869 : " Stanton says that lie hears of 
declarations by Grant in favor of economy, re- 
trenchment, and the collection of the revenue, but 
nothing about the rights of man to be maintained 
in all their fullness ; but I hope for the best." 

At this session the treaties negotiated by Rev- 
erdy Johnson with Lord Clarendon relating to 
naturalization, the San Juan boundary question, 
and the Alabama Claims were sent to the Senate. 
Sumner took pains to ascertain the views of Gen- 
eral Grant, who showed his feeling that the settle- 
ment of the main questions pending with England 
should be left for the new administration. The 
consideration of the Claims treaty was accordingly 
postponed. Sumner tried to prepare Mr. Bright 
for adverse action, in a letter of January 19, 
1869: — 

" I finish this letter at my seat in the Senate. 
Last evening I met General Grant at dinner and 
conversed with him briefly on the new treaties. 
I would not commit him, and do not think that he 
has any very precise policy. He did not seem to 
object to the naturalization and San Juan negotia- 
tions, but I think he had a different feeling with 
regard to the Claims convention. He asked why 
this could not be allowed to go over to the next 
administration ? This morning I called up the sub- 
ject in my committee. There was nothing but 
general conversation, in the course of which it was 
remarked that Great Britain had never appreciated 



FOREIGN RELATIONS 361 

the wrong, the terrible wrong done to us, not only 
in the cases of the ships destroyed, but also in 
driving our commerce from the ocean. You know 
that I have never disguised the opinion that the 
concession of belligerent rights was wrongful." 

In 1867 Mr. Seward negotiated a treaty with 
Denmark by which the United States were to buy 
the island of St. Thomas for 17,500,000, if the 
inhabitants by vote consented to the transfer. 
When the treaty was first sent to the Senate, at 
the session beginning December 2, 1867, this assent 
had not been obtained nor were the papers which 
Mr. Sumner at once called for sent to the Senate 
for several weeks. Meanwhile the impeachment of 
the President had been voted, and the treaty was 
laid over till the next winter. It was now consid- 
ered. General Raasloff, one of the Danish minis- 
ters and a most attractive man, who came to Wash- 
ington in order to urge its ratification, was kindly 
treated by Sumner and others, and given every 
opportunity to present his case ; but the commit- 
tee on foreign relations was unanimously opposed 
to the project, and in this represented the opin- 
ion of the country. Consideration for Raasloff, to 
whom failure meant political ruin, induced them 
to keep the treaty in committee until after the in- 
auguration of Grant, when it was laid upon the 
table, the entry in the records being that " this 
was equivalent to a rejection and was a gentler 
method of effecting it." This action accorded 
with the opinion of the new President. 



CHAPTER XXII 

GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION: THE ALABAMA 
CLAIMS 

Sumner's last term in the Senate began on 
March 4, 1869, when General Grant was inau- 
gurated. The oldest senator in continuous ser- 
vice, he occupied a place of great consideration and 
influence. The cause to which he had devoted his 
life had triumphed, and equality of rights seemed 
established in this country under the protection of 
the Constitution. Having been in opposition dur- 
ing the larger part of his senatorial career, he was 
now in full sympathy with the party in power and 
among its recognized leaders. His former associ- 
ates, Chase and Seward, were no longer Republi- 
cans, which made his position in the party more 
conspicuous. There was no man in public life 
whose career had been so long, so distinguished, 
so consistent, as his, or who to so great an extent 
led the conscience of the country. Emerson wrote 
at this time : " Wherever I have met with a dear 
lover of the country and its moral interests, he is 
sure to be a supporter of Sumner. Sumner's moral 
instinct and character are so exceptionally pure 
that he must have perpetual magnetism for honest 



GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 363 

men ; his ability and working energy such that 
every good friend of the Republic must vote for 
him." This position, won by the constant labors 
and sacrifices of eighteen years, was exceptional, 
and he might well look forward to a period of dig- 
nified repose, free from the strain of active political 
contest and from the fearful anxieties of the strug;- 
gle with slavery, — a period in which his experience 
and accumulated wisdom would make his counsels 
respected, and in which he could exert a strong in- 
fluence in the conduct of the government. These 
anticipations were not to be realized. His last 
term of service was to be marked by a series of 
conflicts with his own party associates, more bitter 
to him than any he had known, and was to be sad- 
dened by personal differences which clouded the 
rest of his life. 

At first his relations with the administration 
were most cordial. Hamilton Fish, who after 
Elihu Washburne's brief service of a week became 
secretary of state, was an old and intimate friend. 
With Judge Hoar, the attorney-general, his friend- 
ship was even closer ; while Mr. Boutwell, the sec- 
retary of the treasury, was, among leading Repub- 
licans, the one most uniformly in sympathy with 
Sumner. Indeed, there was no one in the Cabinet 
with whom he was not on pleasant terms, though 
some of its members were little known to him. 
The President's first choice for secretary of the 
treasury was Alexander T. Stewart of New York, 
but after his nomination it was found that he was 



364 CHARLES SUMNER 

ineligible under the law of 1789, which provided 
that no incumbent of this office should " directly 
or indirectly be concerned in carrying on the 
business of trade or commerce." Mr. Sherman 
at once introduced a bill to repeal this provision, 
asking unanimous consent to its immediate con- 
sideration. Mr. Sumner objected, and when, a 
little later, the President sent a message urging 
legislation which would exempt Mr. Stewart from 
the prohibition and Mr. Sherman introduced a 
bill for this purpose, Sumner repeated the objec- 
tion. He thus prevented instant action, and on 
reflection the proposed legislation was abandoned. 
It is doubtful if some of Mr. Sumner's more 
conspicuous services were followed by so many 
private letters of thanks as was this simple action. 
There is, however, reason to think that General 
Grant was irritated thereby, though his feeling 
was not manifested. 

The diplomatic appointments were the subject of 
much conference between Mr. Fish and Mr. Sum- 
ner, but it does not appear that Sumner's wishes 
were always regarded. He recommended Mr. 
Motley as minister to England, but the appoint- 
ment was probably due to other considerations. 

The Johnson-Clarendon treaty for the settle- 
ment of our claims against England came before 
the Senate at its special session. Eeverdy John- 
son's effusive expressions of good- will towards 
England and a desire that the new administration 
should deal with the question created a feeling 



GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 365 

against ratification, and the committee on foreign 
relations unanimously agreed in an adverse report. 
Sumner, however, had sounder reasons for opposing 
the treaty, and on April 13, 1869, he stated them, 
putting the case of the United States against Eng- 
land in its extreme form and in severe terms. 
The treaty, he said, did not settle the pending 
questions ; " it is nothing but a snare." His reason 
was that it was only an ordinary " claims conven- 
tion," providing for the adjustment of individual 
claims on both sides, but leaving untouched the 
great wrong to the United States as a nation. 
Therefore, he said, " it cannot be for the interest 
of either party " that it be ratified, since both 
desired a final settlement. 

He claimed that our real grievance lay in the 
concession to the rebels of ocean belligerency, 
when they had no ships, no ports, no prize courts, 
and were in fact not belligerents at sea. This en- 
abled the Confederacy to build and equip ships of 
war and to buy munitions in England, in short it 
made England a Confederate arsenal, and saved 
blockade runners from being treated as pirates. 
He dwelt on the negligence which allowed the Ala- 
bama to escape, and on the shelter accorded to her 
in English ports, which made her in fact an English 
ship warring upon us under English protection. 
He recalled the fact that the proclamation of 
neutrality was signed on the very day that Mr. 
Adams landed in Liverpool, and claimed that the 
offense was far worse because England departed 



366 CHARLES SUMNER 

from her settled policy of hostility to slavery in 
thus helping men who were fighting to estab- 
lish it. 

" The blockade runners," he said, " were kin- 
dred to the pirate ships. . . . When, after a long 
and painful siege, our conquering troops entered 
Vicksburg, they found Armstrong guns from 
England in position ; and so on every field where 
our patriot fellow citizens breathed a last breath 
were English guns and munitions of war, all 
testifying against England. The dead spoke also 
— and the wounded still speak." 

Individual losses were trifling compared with 
the national losses caused by England's conduct. 
Among these he counted the loss of our carrying 
trade, the injury to our shipbuilding interest, and 
the expense of the war during the period by which 
England's action prolonged it. 

Mr. Sumner stated his own position thus : " For 
several years I have carefully avoided saying 
anything on this most irritating question, being 
anxious that negotiations should be left undis- 
turbed to secure a settlement which could be ac- 
cepted by a deeply injured nation. The submission 
of the pending treaty to the judgment of the Sen- 
ate left me no alternative. It became my duty to 
consider it carefully in committee, and to review 
the whole subject. If I failed to find what we 
had a right to expect, and if the just claims of 
our country assumed unexpected proportions, it was 
not because I would bear hard on England, but 



GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 367 

because I wish most sincerely to remove all pos- 
sibility of strife between our two countries ; and 
it is evident that this can be done only by first 
ascertaining the nature and extent of difference. 
In this spirit I have spoken to-day. . . . The at- 
tempt to close this great international debate with- 
out a complete settlement is little short of puerile." 

Notwithstanding its few pacific words the speech 
seemed hardly calculated to promote a settlement. 
England had reluctantly consented to arbitrate, 
and now her most conspicuous friend among Amer- 
ican statesmen replied that her concession was idle, 
and that the claims of the United States exceeded 
in character and magnitude anything that her 
statesmen had imagined possible. In it Sumner 
took no new position ; his opinions had already 
been stated fully, and in fact our government had 
taken the same ground ; but the English had not 
realized what we meant. As Sumner wrote to 
Lieber somewhat later : " I have made no demand, 
not a word of apology, not a dollar ! nor have I 
menaced, suggested, or thought of war. . . . My 
object was simply to expose our wrongs as plainly, 
but as gently, as possible. ... To my mind our 
first duty is to make England see what she has 
done to us." 

Sumner accomplished this object completely. 
He instructed England, and he satisfied America. 
The people of the United States felt that his pre- 
sentation of the case was adequate. The admin- 
istration, the Senate, and the public approved his 



368 CHARLES SUMNER 

words. The treaty was rejected by a unanimous 
vote, and Sumner acquired a controlling influence 
in the settlement of the controversy. In England 
the speech was received with indignation by the 
public, with sorrow by some of his friends, and 
with resentment by others. He was regarded as 
an enemy of England. Even John Bright com- 
plained, and the Duchess of Argyll wrote : " For 
the first time I am silenced when you are spoken 
about. I understood you through the war. I do 
not now." 

After the first feeling of wrath subsided, how- 
ever, England awoke to the fact that the questions 
growing out of her course during the civil war 
must be settled ; that the grievance of this coun- 
try was real and its sense of wrong deep, and that 
such a feeling was a danger not to be ignored. 
The result was the Joint High Commission. Two 
years later Sir Stafford Northcote wrote to Mr. 
Sumner, after reading the speech again : " Though 
I must own your speech was somewhat sharp, I 
verily believe that it taught us a valuable lesson 
in that respect, and that we may say of it, fidelia 
vulnera amcnitis" 

Mr. Sumner's course was justified by the event, 
and the words, which seemed likely to prevent an 
adjustment, paved the way to a real settlement as 
he intended. His views were met in the later 
treaty, his positions were maintained by our coun- 
sel at Geneva, and if the arbitrators rejected our 
claims for " indirect damages," it is one thing to 



GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 369 

lose after a fair trial, and quite another to be 
denied a trial altogether. It was not money but 
the recognition by England that her course was 
at least questionable which was desired. England's 
consent to arbitrate all our claims was such a recog- 
nition and was what we asked. That conceded, 
reconciliation was substantially accomplished. 

During the early months of the new administra- 
tion the secretary of war, General Rawlins, a close 
friend of the President, endeavored to secure the 
recognition of the insurgent Cubans as belligerents. 
The President was inclined to follow this advice, 
and Mr. Sumner exerted all his influence against 
it. Not only did the conditions fail to justify it, but 
premature recognition would have embarrassed us 
seriously in our controversy with England. Backed 
by Mr. Fish and Judge Hoar, Sumner's arguments 
prevailed, and were repeated publicly when at a 
later day the question became more pressing. 

Mr. Fish consulted him freely upon the instruc- 
tions to Mr. Motley, especially as to the difficulty 
of making the proclamation of belligerency a 
ground for claim against England, while it was 
still uncertain whether the President would not 
recognize the Cubans as belligerents. Sumner 
was determined that our position against England 
should not be affected by any such consideration, 
and succeeded in having the instructions so drawn 
as to present the case against England substan- 
tially in accordance with his speech upon the John- 
son-Clarendon treaty. His relations with the ad- 



370 CHARLES SUMNER 

ministration at this time were stated by Mr. Fish 
himself in a dispatch to a New York newspaper, 
which he dictated : — 

" Mr. Sumner, as chairman of the Senate com- 
mittee on foreign relations, was consulted con- 
stantly during the preparation of these instructions ; 
and when they were completed he not only ex- 
pressed his entire approval of the course Mr. Mot- 
ley was intended to pursue, but signified that the 
policy thus marked out was as firm and vigorous as 
our foreign relations would now justify. In fact at 
no time has Mr. Sumner been in closer accord or in 
more direct sympathy with the policy of President 
Grant than at present, and rumors of disagreement 
are entirely unfounded." 

Evidently the secretary of state saw that there 
was danger even in a rumor that Sumner disap- 
proved the policy of the department. 

Sumner left Washington shortly after June 15, 
entirely satisfied with the situation, for he wrote 
to Motley on that day: "England must listen 
and at last yield. I do not despair of seeing the 
debate end, (1) in the withdrawal of England 
from this hemisphere, (2) in remodeling maritime 
international law. Such a consummation would 
place our Republic at the head of the civilized 
world." 

Indeed at that time the cession of Canada, in 
satisfaction of our claims, was suggested by Mr. 
Fish to the English minister, who replied, as Sum- 
ner writes in a private letter, that " England did 



GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 371 

not wish to keep Canada, but could not part with 
it without the consent of the population." 

After leaving Washington Sumner visited Mr. 
Fish, among others, and continued to urge vigor- 
ous action in the negotiations with England. At 
his suggestion Caleb Cushing was consulted in 
drawing the instructions to Mr. Motley, which 
were sent on September 25, and were described 
by Lord Clarendon as " Mr. Sumner's speech over 
again." 

On September 22 Mr. Sumner presided at the 
Republican convention in Massachusetts, and made 
a speech upon the political situation, in which he 
reasserted the positions which he had taken already 
on reconstruction, finance, and the pending ques- 
tions with England. He spoke also of our rela- 
tions with Spain and Cuba, dealing with the pro- 
blem which has confronted the country steadily 
for years, and which has now taken a new phase, 
admitting that the Spanish power was "an an- 
achronism," and that the day of European colonies 
had passed in this hemisphere, but contending that 
" the true course of the United States " was " to 
avoid involving ourselves in any way," that the 
sound rule was " non-intervention, except in the 
way of good offices." He said that by interna- 
tional law " nations are not left to any mere ca- 
price. There is a rule of conduct which they must 
follow, subject always to just accountability where 
they depart from it." Under that law " belli- 
gerence is a ' fact ' attested by evidence. If the 



\ 



372 CHARLES SUMNER 

' fact ' does not exist, there is nothing to recognize. 
The fact cannot be invented or imagined, it must 
be proved. No matter what our sympathy, what 
the extent of our desires, we must look at the fact." 

In speaking of the question with England, he 
said : " Sometimes there are whispers of territorial 
compensation, and Canada is named as the consid- 
eration. But he knows England little, and little 
also of that great English liberty from Magna 
Charta to the Somerset case, who supposes that 
this nation could undertake any such transfer. 
And he knows our country little, and little also of 
that great liberty which is ours, who supposes that 
we could receive such a transfer. On each side 
there is impossibility. Territory may be conveyed, 
but not a people. I allude to this suggestion only 
because, appearing in the public press, it has been 
answered from England." He expressed his belief, 
however, that eventually a union between Canada 
and the United States would come by mutual desire. 

During this autumn he delivered his lecture on 
" Caste " before audiences all over the Eastern 
States. It was intended as an appeal to public 
opinion against the prejudice of race and in favor 
of equal rights. His conclusion indicates what his 
attitude would have been on some later issues : — 

" To those who find peril in the growing multi- 
tudes admitted to citizenship I reply, that our 
Republic assumed these responsibilities when it 
declared the equal rights of all men, and that just 
government stands only on the consent of the gov- 



GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 373 

erned. Hospitality of citizenship is the law of its 
being. ... If the Chinese come for labor only, we 
have the advantage of their wonderful and docile 
industry. If they come for citizenship, then do 
they offer the pledge of incorporation in our Re- 
public, filling it with increase. Nor is there peril 
in the gifts they bring. As all rivers are lost in 
the sea, which shows no sign of their presence, so 
will all peoples be lost in the widening confines 
of our Republic, with an ocean-bound continent 
for its unparalleled expanse, and one harmonious 
citizenship, where all are equal in rights, for its 
gentle and impartial sway." 

In November, shortly before the reassembling of 
Congress, Mr. Fish wrote him that Mr. Thornton, 
the British minister, had expressed the anxiety of 
his government to settle the pending question, and 
had asked for some intimation as to terms. " I 
answered," wrote Mr. Fish, " somewhat vaguely ; 
but he evidently wished ... to obtain something 
more definite, — which I was not willing to give, 
until I could have the opportunity of consulting 
with you to know what your committee and the 
Senate will agree to. When will you be here? 
Will you either note what you think will be suffi- 
cient to meet the views of the Senate and of the 
country, or will you formulate such a proposition ? " 
In such cordial relations with the administration 
Sumner began the session of Congress which opened 
on December 6, 1869. Mr. Fessenden's death 
during the recess had left a vacancy in the com- 



374 CHARLES SUMNER 

mittee on foreign relations, which was filled by Mr. 
Schurz, who was from this time in close accord 
with Mr. Sumner. 

The reconstruction question came again before 
the Senate in January, 1870, when a long debate 
occurred on a bill to admit Virginia. Sumner, 
believing that the reconstructed government was 
in the hands of disloyal men, urged investigation. 
An amendment was moved, that action by the legis- 
lature of Virginia at any time, rescinding its rati- 
fication of the Fifteenth Amendment, should exclude 
the State from representation in Congress and re- 
mand it to its provisional government. Governor 
Morton of Indiana and Mr. Sumner supported 
this, insisting that Congress would always have the 
power to enforce the conditions on which the States 
were admitted. Sumner said : " No one of these 
States, by anything that it may do hereafter, can 
escape from that far-reaching power." If this 
position can be maintained, a question may arise 
as to the power of Congress over the recent action 
of certain Southern States, by which the right of 
suffrage is taken from ignorant colored men but 
preserved to equally ignorant white men. 

The amendment was lost ; but fundamental con- 
ditions were attached to the bill, imposing the test 
oath on state officers and securing impartial suf- 
frage, equal eligibility to office, and equal school 
privileges. "Good faith" in the adoption of a 
republican state constitution, and in the ratifica- 
tion of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, 



GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 375 

was also made " a condition precedent to represen- 
tation of the State in Congress." Sumner took 
part in the debate, supporting every proposition 
calculated to insure a loyal government and abso- 
lute equality of rights, but not voting for the bill, 
even as amended, because he felt that it endan- 
gered the rights and security of loyal people. 

Mississippi was admitted at this session upon the 
conditions already imposed on Virginia. The pas- 
sage of this act was followed by the admission of 
Mr. Revels, a colored man, as one of the senators 
from Mississippi, an event which Sumner hailed as 
forever setting at rest the question of equal rights. 
With this session the reconstruction period practi- 
cally ended, and though the battle for equal rights 
was not yet over, the recognition of the principle 
in the reconstruction legislation was due to Sum- 
ner's untiring persistency. 

At this session he struck another blow at dis- 
crimination on account of color, when a bill was 
pending to amend the naturalization laws so as 
to prevent certain election frauds. Much to the 
disgust of Mr. Edmunds, who was in charge of 
the bill, he offered an amendment striking the 
word " white " from all statutes relating to natural- 
ization. The session was approaching its end, and 
the amendment meant a discussion, for it opened 
our citizenship to the Chinese as well as to men of 
African descent. Hence, doubtless, Mr. Edmunds 
considered it ill-timed, and opposed it. Mr. Sum- 
ner answered that he had twice tried to pass his 



376 CHARLES SUMNER 

amendment as a separate bill and would not forego 
this opportunity. The amendment was at first 
adopted, whereupon a proviso excluding Chinese 
was moved. The debate continuing, Sumner was 
attacked by Conkling for pressing his amendment. 
The day was July 4, and Sumner did not fail to 
take advantage of the coincidence in reply, quot- 
ing the Declaration of Independence, and continu- 
ing : — 

"The great, the mighty, words of this clause are 
that these self-evident, unalienable rights belong to 
' all men.' It is ' all men,' and not a race or color, 
that are placed under protection of the Declara- 
tion. . . . But the statutes of the land assert the 
contrary, — they declare that only all zvhite men 
are created equal." 

Sumner's amendment was finally rejected, on 
account of the feeling against the Chinese ; but an 
amendment extending the privilege of naturaliza- 
tion to persons of African birth or descent was 
adopted, and the bill passed. It certainly was 
strange that among all nations of color, preference 
should be given expressly to the African, so lately 
deemed the lowest among the races of men. 

Sumner firmly believed that financial reconstruc- 
tion was essential to repair the wounds of the war, 
and amid the contest over the admission of Vir- 
ginia he introduced a bill to authorize the re- 
funding of the national debt, " to extend banking 
facilities, and to establish specie payments." This 
he supported in a careful speech, and afterwards 



GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 377 

in debates upon this and other financial measures 
he took an active part. These speeches were direct 
and business-like discussions of the subject, entirely- 
free from the tone into which he was sometimes 
betrayed when speaking on questions of human 
rights. His plans involved refunding at a lower 
rate of interest by the issue of long-time bonds, 
substituting for the " greenbacks " an equal amount 
of national bank notes so distributed as to provide 
for the necessities of districts where the currency 
was insufficient, and direct legislation looking to 
the resumption of specie payments. He recognized 
those evils which still confront us, and his reme- 
dies might have avoided much subsequent trouble. 
Some of his recommendations, indeed, were in sub- 
stance adopted shortly afterwards ; but the replace- 
ment of the " greenbacks " by bank circulation 
properly distributed and secured, though recognized 
as necessary by the best financial authorities, is 
still to come. 

Always in favor of everything that aided educa- 
tion and the diffusion of knowledge, he made an 
elaborate speech in favor of one-cent postage, which 
must remain a permanent contribution to the dis- 
cussion of postal systems and a convincing argu- 
ment for the lowest rates. When Mr. Fessenden's 
death was formally announced in the Senate he 
spoke of him in terms of cordial appreciation, 
showing that their sharp differences had not af- 
fected his respect for his eminent associate. He 
opposed the continuance of the income tax as a 



378 CHARLES SUMNER 

war tax no longer needed, unequal and vexatious. 
By sheer persistence lie secured a pension for Mrs. 
Lincoln in spite of a unanimous report against it 
from the committee. These were among his mis- 
cellaneous labors. 



CHAPTER XXIII 
SAN DOMINGO AND THE CONTEST WITH GRANT 

The most important contest of the session in its 
effect on Sumner personally arose over the treaty 
for annexing San Domingo. This part of Hayti 
had long been torn by the feud between Baez and 
Cabral, rivals for the presidency and alternately 
successful. In 1868 Baez was in control, but Ca- 
bral threatened his supremacy. When out of 
power Baez had sought aid from the United States. 
Now, being in office, he sent an envoy to this 
country in the hope of gaining support, and reso- 
lutions for the annexation of San Domingo, or a 
protectorate, were introduced in the House during 
Mr. Johnson's administration, but were not dis- 
cussed. 

After General Grant's accession Baez applied to 
him, and he was persuaded that the annexation of 
San Domingo was desirable. He kept the nego- 
tiations in his own hands and selected his secre- 
tary, General Babcock, as his representative. In 
May a man-of-war was sent to the several Domin- 
ican ports in order to learn the popular feeling, 
and in July General Babcock was dispatched with 
instructions, signed by Mr. Fish, to inquire as to 



380 CHARLES SUMNER 

the island, its resources, and the condition of its 
affairs. Secretary Robeson placed a man-of-war at 
his service, instructed if necessary to give him " the 
moral support of its guns ; " and in September, 
acting absolutely without authority, Babcock exe- 
cuted with Baez a treaty of annexation involving 
the payment by this country of 11,500,000 for de- 
fraying the debt of San Domingo. Babcock signed 
as the aide-de-camp of the President, and his pro- 
tocol stated that the President " promises privately 
to use all his influence in order that the idea of 
annexing the Dominican republic to the United 
States may acquire such a degree of popularity 
among members of Congress as will be necessary 
for its accomplishment." 

The President ratified his action and sent him 
back to San Domingo in November, backed by 
three men-of-war. There he made two treaties, 
one for the annexation of San Domingo and one 
for a lease of Samana Bay, and in behalf of the 
President guarantied San Domingo against foreign 
interference until the treaties were ratified. Bab- 
cock forthwith declared his intention to take pos- 
session of Samana Bay and to raise the American 
flag there, and he instructed the naval commander 
to protect the government of San Domingo against 
any attack, especially from Hayti. This meant 
that the navy should keep Baez in power against 
Cabral until the bargain by which Baez sold his 
country was ratified by the United States. These 
instructions were confirmed by Secretary Robeson, 



SAN DOMINGO 381 

who kept a large force in the waters of San Do- 
mingo and directed the admiral in command, not 
only to "protect" the "Dominican government 
against any power attempting to interfere with 
it," but to " visit Samana Bay and the capital and 
see the United States power and authority secure 
there." He was directed also to notify the govern- 
ment of Hayti that the United States would pro- 
tect San Domingo, and the peremptory order was 
added : " If the Haytians attack the Dominicans 
with' their ships, destroy or capture them." The 
navy of the United States was thus placed at the 
disposal of Baez, to protect him against his own 
subjects as well as foreign enemies, while war was 
threatened against Hayti, a friendly power ; and 
these things were done without authority from 
Congress. 

The country was in no mood for annexing a hot- 
bed of revolution with a population like that of 
San Domingo. The rejection of the St. Thomas 
treaty was fresh in the public mind, and the argu- 
ments against the annexation of San Domingo were 
much stronger. But even had annexation been 
desirable, the manner of securing the treaty, the 
doubts as to the authority of Baez, the absence of 
popular consent, the extraordinary proceedings of 
Babcock, and the arbitrary use of the navy, added 
much to the opposition. Had President Johnson 
done these things, he could not have escaped im- 
peachment. But the great popularity of Grant, 
the public confidence in his honesty, and the feel- 



382 CHAKLES SUMNER 

ing that his training had not fitted him to un- 
derstand the illegality of his action, made men 
indulgent to his errors ; nor was the Republican 
party inclined to quarrel a second time with a 
president of its own selection. 

Sumner's first knowledge of these transactions 
was in January, 1870, when President Grant called 
at his house one evening while he was at dinner 
with J. W. Forney and B. P. Poore, one the sec- 
retary of the Senate, the other a well known news- 
paper correspondent. They were both present at 
the interview which followed. The President made 
some reference to treaties about San Domingo, but 
gave no clear idea of their terms or object. He 
said that they would come before the committee on 
the judiciary, and therefore he wished to see Mr. 
Sumner as its chairman, a mistake in the name of 
the committee, which indicated General Grant's 
lack of familiarity with the Senate. Sumner turned 
the conversation to Governor Ashley of Montana, 
of whose removal he wished to speak, but the 
President brought it back to the treaties and made 
some inquiry intended to ascertain Sumner's atti- 
tude towards them. Sumner's reply, as he repeated 
it to Mr. Schurz next day, was : " Mr. President, 
I am an administration man, and whatever you do 
will always find in me the most careful and candid 
consideration." The President afterwards claimed 
that Sumner promised his support, and it is prob- 
able that he misunderstood Sumner's language, 
interpreting what was said by his own strong 



SAN DOMINGO 383 

wishes and not anticipating opposition. It is in- 
credible, however, that Mr. Sumner pledged him- 
self to support the treaties without having seen 
them, and with no knowledge of their contents. 
In such matters he was extremely cautious, and 
where the " Black Republic " was concerned he 
would have been especially so ; for to preserve its 
independence was to him a matter of great impor- 
tance. Nor would he ever have consented to any 
treaty which annexed territory without the consent 
of the inhabitants. 1 The attitude which he had 
just taken on the annexation of St. Thomas, his 
political creed, the whole habit of his life, were 
such as to make the alleged promise impossible. 

Sumner was a man of his word and absolutely 
truthful. It is therefore of no slight importance 
that, from the moment of the interview until the 
treaties were rejected, he never by word or act indi- 
cated the least consciousness of any pledge to sup- 
port them, while on the contrary his opposition was 
frank and consistent. It is impossible to resist the 
conclusion that this opposition to a scheme which 
the President had at heart seemed to him, with his 
ideas of military discipline, like rank insubordi- 
nation. Experience has shown that a president 
bent upon enlarging the country's boundaries is apt 
to take a deeper personal interest in the project 
than in questions of domestic policy, and to treat 
opposition as personal disloyalty. To Grant this 
was especially easy, for he felt that, as the head of 
1 See his remarks upon the annexation of Canada, ante, p. 372. 



384 CHARLES SUMNER 

the Republican party, he had a right to command 
its members, and he was peculiarly impatient of 
resistance. Finding Sumner opposed he became 
irritated, and in his irritation gave to the interview 
at Sumner's house a character which it did not 
deserve. It became a subject of bitter contro- 
versy ; but its importance was exaggerated. Had 
no interview occurred the President would have 
been equally indignant at Sumner's attitude. 

When the treaties were referred to the committee 
on foreign relations, the first meeting, on January 
18, 1870, made it clear that the committee would 
report against them. Only one member said any- 
thing in their favor. At Sumner's suggestion the 
committee proceeded deliberately, so that their ac- 
tion might be taken with due respect to the Presi- 
dent, and Sumner withheld his own opinion for a 
while that each member might act upon his own 
judgment. During the consideration he learned 
from the assistant secretary of state, and after- 
wards by inquiry at the Navy Department, how 
our navy had been employed and by what means 
the treaties had been secured. He was shocked 
at the discovery that " we were engaged in forcing 
upon a weak people the sacrifice of their country." 
From that moment his position was taken. He did 
not call upon the President and state his views, be- 
cause, as he afterwards said in the Senate : " On 
carefid reflection at the time I did not regard it as 
expedient. I thought it more gentle and consider- 
ate to avoid discussions with him, being assured 



SAN DOMINGO 385 

that he would ascertain the judgment on annexa- 
tion through the expression of public sentiment in 
the newspapers and various reports." 

The opposition angered the President, and he 
exerted all his influence to carry his point. He 
sent two messages to the Senate urging ratifica- 
tion, on March 14 and on May 31. He argued 
with members of the committee ; he visited the Cap- 
itol, and interviewed senators. In a word he did 
all that General Babcock had pledged him to do, 
and his influence, especially with the new Southern 
senators, was very great. Mr. Fish urged Sumner 
not to oppose the President, and the efforts of the 
administration continued up to the final vote. On 
March 15 the treaties were reported adversely, 
Senators Harlan and Morton dissenting from the 
report in which Sumner, Patterson, Schurz, Cam- 
eron, and Cassidy joined, though Cameron re- 
served the right to vote for ratification in certain 
events. Mr. Ferry moved that the debate be in open ~^ 
session, but the motion was defeated upon Sumner's >"' 
suggestion that, though he favored open sessions, it 
was unwise to change an established rule when it 
might seem to be done with reference to a particu- 
lar treaty. Sumner opened the debate in a speech 
of four hours, in which he discussed the whole sub- 
ject, but " expressed confidence in the President's 
entire honesty." No partisan of the President who 
heard it ever complained of its tone, while several 
spoke of it in terms of admiration. He opposed on 
obvious grounds, such as the difficulty of dealing 



V 



386 CHARLES SUMNER 

with the population, the likelihood of our being 
tempted into further annexation, the chronic rebel- 
lion existing there, the expense and trouble, and the 
wrong to the colored man involved in taking away 
the independence of Hayti. After a debate run- 
ning through some weeks the treaty was laid aside 
until June 29, when after a brief discussion the 
vote was taken on June 30, and the Senate being 
equally divided the treaty was rejected. 

The day after the vote Mr. Motley was removed 
from his place as minister to England. This was 
clearly meant as a punishment of Sumner, who was 
Motley's friend, and had favored his appointment. 
The President's friends learned his purpose and 
some protested against the removal before it was 
made. Senator Wilson wrote an urgent letter 
against it, saying : " His removal will be re- 
garded by the Republicans of Massachusetts as a 
blow not only at him, but at Mr. Sumner." 

The tone and manner of the removal, and the 
testimony from contemporary witnesses, leave little 
doubt that Mr. Wilson was right. Till then Mr. 
Sumner had said or done nothing to indicate any 
hostility to the President, and though indignant at 
an act which seemed intended to influence impro- 
perly the action of senators, he now gave no public 
expression of his feeling. He could not, however, 
fail to recognize in the act a meaning which was 
apparent to the President's own supporters. In 
letters to intimate friends he spoke of it, but more 
in sorrow for Motley than in wrath on his own 
account. 



SAN DOMINGO 387 

Sumner's first public speech after the adjourn- 
ment of Congress was in Faneuil Hall, where he 
presided at a meeting held to ratify the state nom- 
inations, and urged the voters of Massachusetts to 
maintain the Republican party, saying : " So long 
as anybody assails the Declaration of Independ- 
ence the Republican party cannot cease its patri- 
otic labors." The speech contained no reference 
to the administration or to the treaties, and no hint 
of any difference with the President. 

At the next session the President in his annual 
message reiterated his conviction that the interests 
of the country demanded the ratification of the San 
Domingo treaties, and he recommended the appoint- 
ment of commissioners to negotiate a new treaty 
for the acquisition and an appropriation for their 
expenses. He said : " I now firmly believe that 
the moment it is known that the United States 
have entirely abandoned the project of accepting 
as a part of its territory the island of San Domingo, 
a free port will be negotiated for by European na- 
tions in the Bay of Samana, — a large commercial 
city will spring up, to which we shall be tributary 
without receiving corresponding benefits, and then 
will be seen the folly of our rejecting so great a 
prize." Thirty years have elapsed since these words 
were written, and no great foreign city has sprung 
up on the Bay of Samana. The cry is ancient that 
acquisitions, useless or worse to us, are much de- 
sired by other nations, but experience has never 
proved it true. 



388 CHAKLES SOIXER 

An attempt was made at the outset of the ses- 
sion to change the committee on foreign relations, 
in order to get a body more favorable to the pro- 
ject. The first suggestion was to drop Sumner or 
Schurz, but it was decided to leave them and to 
substitute Conkling for Patterson. The commit- 
tee thus changed was reported to the caucus, but 
Sumner objected and the change was abandoned. 

The first move was made by Sumner, who, on 
December 9, offered a resolution calling for all 
the correspondence and instructions relating to the 
former treaty, the directions given to our naval 
officers, and other information. On December 12 
Senator Morton offered resolutions authorizing the 
President to appoint a commission with authority 
to inquire into matters bearing upon annexation. 
The latter resolution was taken up first and pressed 
to a vote, without reference to a committee which 
was refused. It was treated by its supporters as 
a resolution of inquiry, and the commission con- 
templated by it was very different from that which 
the President wanted. It was an attempt to tem- 
porize. Sumner opposed it vigorously on Decem- 
ber 21, pointing out that it was unnecessary, since 
the President already had power to appoint com- 
missioners and money enough in the secret service 
fund to pay their expenses. He argued that the 
only effect of the resolution was to commit the 
country, and that it was offered for this purpose. 
He discussed the history of the rejected treaty, 
criticised Baez, and condemned the use of the 



[Ckarles Sumner to William Lloyd Garrison] 



p* 







•«? 



f 

a. c 







* * ' 






/ ^^W On J 







SAN DOMINGO 389 

navy, which had been employed to keep Baez in 
power that he might sell his country. He did not 
attack the President personally, but he criticised 
the course of the administration, and described the 
whole project as an attempt to deprive a feeble 
people of their independence by methods unjusti- 
fiable in law or morals. He spoke evidently with 
strong feeling, and his speech, though in form 
merely an attack upon a policy, was in effect an 
arraignment of the President. He was absolutely 
right in his positions, but his language and manner 
were unfortunate, and he excited a feeling which 
made it harder to attain his object. His opening 
sentence was : — 

" The resolution before the Senate commits Con- 
gress to a dance of blood. It is a new step in a 
measure of violence. Already several steps have 
been taken, and Congress is now summoned to an- 
other." 

Addressing the Vice-President, he said : — 
" Go to the President, I ask you, and address 
him frankly with the voice of a friend to whom he 
must hearken. Counsel him to shun all approach 
to the example of Franklin Pierce, James Buch- 
anan, and Andrew Johnson ; tell him not to allow 
the oppression of a weak and humble people ; 
ask him not to exercise war powers without au- 
thority of Congress; and remind him, kindly, 
but firmly, that there is a grandeur in justice and 
peace beyond anything in material aggrandizement, 
beyond anything in war. ... I am not insensi- 



390 CHARLES SUMNER 

ble to the commercial and material prosperity of 
my country. But there is something above these. 
It is the honor and good name of the Republic, 
now darkened by an act of wrong. If this terri- 
tory so much coveted by the President were infi- 
nitely more valuable than it is, I hope the Senate 
would not be tempted to obtain it by trampling on 
the weak and humble." 

This speech led to sharp replies, and Sumner 
answered, repeating what he had in fact said to 
the President in the interview at his house, and 
declaring that his " language was precise, well-con- 
sidered, and chosen in advance." It was entirely 
characteristic of Sumner that he did not see how 
his words were calculated to irritate the President. 
At the close of his last speech during the debate he 
insisted : " I said nothing to arraign Grant," and 
disclaimed any disposition to do so. But it was 
impossible for him to feel so strongly as he did 
without making his feeling apparent, even though 
his language was impersonal. His words were 
those of one outraged at a wrong and determined 
to expose it as a matter of duty, though not willing 
to call names. The President recognized and un- 
doubtedly exaggerated Sumner's feeling ; he felt 
himself attacked, and from that moment his hos- 
tility to Sumner was settled. 

The debate became very bitter, and Sumner was 
sharply criticised by Conkling, Edmunds, Carpen- 
ter, Chandler, and others, who attributed his atti- 
tude to personal resentment. It is certainly true 



SAN DOMINGO 391 

that he was indignant with the President for treat- 
ing his opposition as a personal matter, and his 
indignation undoubtedly affected his speech. It 
is not true that any personal feeling led him to 
oppose the treaty, or to condemn the acts by which 
Baez was supported and the treaty negotiated. 
The President's purpose and methods were bad, 
and Sumner was sure to oppose them, though his 
language might have been more persuasive. 

When Sumner made this speech he was familiar 
with the facts disclosed by the records of the State 
and Navy Departments ; but the country was igno- 
rant of them, so that the justice of his criticisms 
was not apparent. His resolution of December 9 
was intended to elicit these facts, and after the 
passage of Morton's resolution it was taken up on 
January 4, and passed without a division. Another 
resolution, calling for orders and facts relating to 
the naval force then in the waters of San Domingo, 
was also passed on February 15, and the answer 
to these brought out the whole history which had 
inspired Sumner's speech. 

Meanwhile Morton's resolution was taken up in 
the House on January 9, under a suspension of 
the rules, and was passed the next day, General 
Butler leading for the administration. It was, 
however, amended by a provision that it should not 
be considered as committing Congress to the policy 
of annexation, whereby its real purpose was de- 
feated. The Senate at once passed it as amended 
and the commission was appointed. Their report 



\ 



392 CHARLES SUMNER 

was in line with the President's recommendation, 
but led to no action. 

A contest with the administration involving so 
much personal bitterness, and the disturbance of 
long-established relations, was a serious strain upon 
Sumner. Age and unremitting labor began to tell 
upon his strength. During much of the session he 
suffered from some difficulty in his throat or lungs, 
which gradually weakened him until, on February 
18, he had an attack of angina pectoris, his old 
trouble, which was very severe, and kept him from 
the Senate for a week. His condition after this 
attack is described by Wendell Phillips : — 

"The doctors say the only policy is rest; the 
more he "11 take, the better health, and the better 
chance of life prolonged. I argued and prayed, 
so did we all. . . . The Russian minister said to 
me, ' Make him rest — he must. No man in Wash- 
ington can fill his place, — no man, no man. We 
foreigners all know he is honest. We do not 
think that of many.' " 

Sumner's relations with Mr. Fish had continued 
unchanged, notwithstanding the controversy over 
San Domingo, and on December 23, after his 
speech in the Senate, Sumner dined at Fish's house. 
On January 9, 1871, the President sent to the Sen- 
ate the papers relating to the recall of Motley, 
among which was a letter, in which Motley alluded 
to the statement that he was removed on account 
of Sumner's opposition to the treaty. Fish's reply 
was that this rumor originated " in a source bitterly, 



SAN DOMINGO 393 

personally, and vindictively hostile to the Presi- 
dent," clearly indicating Sumner, and continued : — 

" Mr. Motley must know — or, if he does not 
know it, he stands alone in his ignorance of the 
fact — that many senators opposed the San Do- 
mingo treaty openly, generously, and with as much 
efficiency as did the distinguished senator to whom 
he refers, and have nevertheless continued to enjoy 
the undiminished confidence and the friendship of 
the President, — than whom no man living is more 
tolerant of honest and manly differences of opinion, 
is more single or sincere in his desire for the public 
welfare, or more disinterested or regardless of what 
concerns himself, is more frank and confiding in 
his own dealings, is more sensitive to a betrayal 
of confidence, or would look with more scorn and 
contempt upon one who uses the words and the 
assurances of friendship to cover a secret and 
determined purpose of hostility." 

These words were absolutely without excuse, 
and conveyed a charge against Mr. Sumner unwar- 
ranted by any statement of facts made by Mr. Fish 
or his defenders. No one else, who had known 
Mr. Sumner so long and so well as Mr. Fish had 
done, would have believed Mr. Sumner capable of 
duplicity, nor can any motive for it be suggested. 
The object of duplicity is to deceive, and Mr. Sum- 
ner's opposition to the treaty was open, so soon as 
he understood its provisions. Nothing could be 
gained by a promise of support broken at once, 
and it is perfectly clear that no promise was ever 



394 CHARLES SUMNER 

given. The whole nature, training, experience, 
and standards of Grant and Sumner made it easy 
for them to misunderstand each other. Mr. Fish 
had no such excuse for misrepresenting him, and it 
is charitable to believe that he did not, in writing 
to Motley, fully appreciate how his words would 
read if published. At all events he understood 
afterward what they meant ; for three days later, 
though nothing but the publication of the letter 
had occurred to change his relations with Mr. 
Sumner, he sent Mr. Patterson to inquire how 
Mr. Sumner would receive him if he called upon 
public business. Sumner replied : " That should 
the secretary come to my house he would be 
received as an old friend, and that at any time I 
should be at his service for consultation on pub- 
lic business ; but that I could not conceal my deep 
sense of personal wrong received from him abso- 
lutely and without excuse." 

Fish accordingly called, and the two had a frank 
and full conversation upon the Alabama claims ; 
but a few days later Sumner refused to recognize 
Fish at dinner. 

The Forty-first Congress expired on March 4, 
and its successor met on the same day and re- 
mained in session until May 27. In the debate 
on the Morton resolution in December, Conkling 
had indicated that Sumner was to be removed from 
the chairmanship of the committee on foreign rela- 
tions, and this was done when the committees were 
elected at the beginning of the new Congress. 



SAN DOMINGO 395 

Howe, Nye, and Pool, a majority of the caucus 
committee, reported a list of committees, putting 
Cameron in Sumner's place and making Sumner 
chairman of the committee on privileges and elec- 
tions. Sherman and Morrill of Vermont, the other 
members of the committee, dissented. In private 
conversation, Howe said that Sumner had offended 
the President by the tone of his opposition to the 
San Domingo treaty. In the caucus he said that, 
as a majority of the Senate favored annexation, the 
committee should be constituted in sympathy with 
this feeling. After some debate in the caucus the 
report was adopted, though Trumbull, the Morrills, 
Ferry of Connecticut, Wilson, Logan, Schurz, and 
others opposed it. Hamlin, Edmunds, Conkling, 
Chandler, Howe, Carpenter, and the strong per- 
sonal following of the President were in the ma- 
jority. When the report was moved in the Senate 
on March 10, Schurz opposed it. Howe, replying, 
paid a high compliment to Sumner's " management 
of the affairs of that committee in the years that 
have passed," and even said: "If senators insist 
upon it, I will admit that the senator from Massa- 
chusetts could, under happier circumstances, fill it 
better than anybody else." 

After a debate, which was one long testimonial 
to his fitness and which exposed the wrong that 
was done him, the report was adopted. The Senate 
refused to stand by Sumner, but yielded to execu- 
tive influence and removed him. It is not pro- 
posed to discuss the reasons which, in the contro- 



396 CHARLES SUMNER 

versy over the matter, were subsequently alleged 
to justify this action. These were afterthoughts, 
not suggested at the time, and disproved when they 
were brought forward. The only reason alleged 
in the discussion was that Sumner's personal re- 
lations with the President and secretary were not 
good, whereby the public business might suffer. 
The charge, made later by Mr. Fish, that Sumner 
had delayed action on treaties, was disproved by 
the Senate records, when the injunction of secrecy 
was removed. It is not proposed, however, to 
discuss Mr. Fish's action. For the purposes of 
this biography it is enough to chronicle the fact 
that Sumner's opposition to the San Domingo 
treaty, in which he was fully supported by the 
opinion of the country, led to his removal at the 
instance of the administration from the place which 
he adorned. The whole chapter illustrates the 
condition of our politics at the time, and is not 
pleasant reading for a patriotic American. 

The press and the public condemned the act of 
the Senate, and it is perhaps sufficient to record 
the judgment of Mr. Blaine, then the speaker of 
the House, as given years afterward. He was 
not naturally in sympathy with Sumner, though in 
active opposition to some of his opponents : — 

" Many senators were compelled, from their sense 
of obedience to the decision of the majority, to 
commit an act against their conceptions of right, 
against what they believed to be justice to a polit- 
ical associate, against what they believed to be 



SAN DOMINGO 397 

sound public policy, against what they believed to 
be the interest of the Republican party." Mr. 
Sumner's "bearing was distinguished by dignity 
and magnanimity. He gave utterance to no com- 
plaints, and silently submitted to the unjustifiable 
wrong of which he was a victim." 

The Joint High Commission to consider all 
pending questions between Great Britain and this 
country was then in session, and Sumner was re- 
moved from his position at the very crisis when a 
question which he had made his own came up for 
settlement. Mr. Blaine's statement is true. He 
bore himself with dignity and made no complaint, 
simply excusing himself from service on the new 
committee. The documents called for by his reso- 
lutions of January and February were sent to the 
Senate, and the facts which had led him to oppose 
the President were thus laid before the country. 
On March 24 he introduced a series of resolutions 
reciting these and calling for the withdrawal of our 
naval forces from San Domingo pending negotia- 
tions, and for the disavowal of the threats uttered 
by our naval officers to the government of Hayti 
and of all hostile action taken by them upon the 
island. The employment of our navy to maintain 
Baez was condemned " as morally wrong," as a 
violation of international law, as " an infraction of 
the Constitution of the United States and a usur- 
pation of power not conferred upon the President," 
and as " unauthorized violence utterly without sup- 
port in law or reason, and proceeding directly from 



398 CHARLES SUMNER 

that kingly prerogative which is disowned by the 
Constitution of the United States." 

Against a vigorous attempt to prevent it, Sumner 
gained the floor and delivered a speech, which had 
been prepared carefully and was far stronger than 
his previous one, because it was more temperate 
and impersonal. He now proved his facts by the 
official records, and the severity lay in the facts 
and the law. He declared that " the navy of the 
United States, acting under orders from Wash- 
ington, has been engaged in measures of violence 
and of belligerent intervention, being war without 
the authority of Congress." This he certainly 
established, and he made it evident how little the 
administration had regarded the legal limitations 
of executive power, and with what reckless violence 
the attempt at annexation had been conducted. 
He told the story of the Dominican adventurers 
who were trying to sell their country, and the 
case of Mr. Hatch, an American citizen, who was 
arrested and imprisoned to prevent his using his 
influence against annexation, because, said Baez, 
"a few weeks' restraint would not be so incon- 
venient to him as his slanderous statements might 
become to the success of General Grant's policy in 
the Antilles." 

The most direct attack upon Grant was this : — 
" It is difficult to see how we can condemn, with 
proper, whole-hearted reprobation, our own domes- 
tic Ku-Klux with its fearful outrages, while the 
President puts himself at the head of a powerful 



SAN DOMINGO 399 

and costly proceeding operating abroad in defiance 
of international law and the Constitution of the 
United States. . . . Nor should I do otherwise 
than fail in justice to the occasion, if I did not 
declare my unhesitating conviction, that, had the 
President been so inspired as to bestow upon the 
protection of Southern Unionists, white and black, 
one half, nay, sir, one quarter, of the time, money, 
zeal, will, personal attention, personal effort, and 
personal intercession, which he has bestowed on 
his attempt to obtain half an island in the Carib- 
bean Sea, our Southern Ku-Klux would have ex- 
isted in name only, while tranquillity reigned 
everywhere within our borders." 

This was inserted on the morning of the speech, 
and might better have been omitted. A debate 
followed, in which Sumner was attacked personally 
by the President's friends, and ably defended by 
Schurz. 

On April 5 the President sent the report of the 
commission to Congress with a special message. 
Morrill of Vermont replied to it, and then the San 
Domingo project was abandoned, as it was found 
impossible to get the necessary support in Con- 
gress. Again Sumner had helped to keep the 
country right, though at terrible cost to himself. 

Shortly after this Sumner spoke in favor of a 
measure to stop the outrages of the Ku-Klux Klan, 
standing in this case with many who had opposed 
him ; but after the defeat of the San Domingo 
proposition the most important work of the session 



400 CHARLES SUMNER 

was the treaty of Washington. His relation to 
the questions pending with England and the know- 
ledge that the country was behind him gave him 
an influence unaffected by his removal from the 
chairmanship of the committee. He conferred 
with the English commissioners often and freely, 
and in the Senate he made the leading speech in 
support of the treaty. He offered, indeed, certain 
amendments, to secure immunity for private pro- 
perty on the ocean and other ameliorations of war, 
but he did not press them. The new treaty was in 
substantial harmony with his views, and thus the 
result of the session was gratifying to him. 

His health called for rest, and he spent the sum- 
mer and autumn in visits and literary labors. 
During this autumn General Butler made his first 
attempt to win the Republican nomination for 
governor of Massachusetts. His campaign was 
extraordinary, and the prospects of his success 
were at one time so good that Sumner and Wilson 
were induced to throw their influence against him, 
which was done by the publication of a statement, 
prepared by Sumner and assented to by Wilson, 
in which they expressed their regret at his course, 
and their opinion that " his nomination as governor 
would be hostile to the best interests of the Com- 
monwealth and the Republican party." The hos- 
tility of the administration had not yet weakened 
Sumner's influence in Massachusetts, and it was 
believed that his action defeated Butler, who from 
this time was his enemy. 




Xe^r+'trz, 




0~Z^€^ 



CHAPTER XXIV 

CIVIL RIGHTS: GRANT'S RENOMINATION 

The second session of the Forty-second Congress 
began in December, 1871. An attempt was made 
to reconcile the President and Sumner, but the 
President did not receive it favorably, though he 
had become reconciled to General Butler and was 
much under his influence. It does not appear that 
Sumner was cognizant of the effort. 

The lines were forming for the campaign of 1872, 
and the question of the President's renomination 
was beginning to press. On December 21 Sum- 
ner proposed a constitutional amendment making 
the President ineligible for reelection, with a reso- 
lution which was in itself a stump speech in favor 
of the proposition. This amendment had been 
reported by the judiciary committee of the Senate 
in 1867. As the preamble of Sumner's resolution 
recited, it had been three times recommended by 
President Jackson ; President Harrison, in accept- 
ing his nomination, had supported it ; Henry Clay 
had urged it ; the Whig party in 1844 had made 
it a plank in their platform ; Senator Wade had 
proposed it at the end of his senatorial term, and 
De Tocqueville had dwelt on the danger arising 



404 CHARLES SUMNER 

A point of order was overruled, and then the 
amendment was defeated by one vote. Sumner 
renewed his motion when the bill was reported to 
the Senate, and on January 15 supported it by an 
elaborate speech, which put the argument largely 
on moral grounds, ignoring those legal objections 
which led the Supreme Court in after years to de- 
clare the act unconstitutional. He easily showed 
that evils existed, and that the civil rights of colored 
men were not recognized in the South. He insisted 
that if the Civil Eights Act was constitutional, 
this supplemental measure was equally so, and that 
since the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments 
had made the colored man a citizen, well-settled 
law compelled innkeepers and common carriers to 
treat him as such. He argued against the preju- 
dice of color, placing himself on Rousseau's propo- 
sition : " It is precisely because the force of things 
tends always to destroy equality that the force 
of legislation should always tend to maintain it ; " 
aud he contended that before rebels were restored 
to rights and privileges which they had forfeited, 
they should be compelled to give their colored fel- 
low citizens the equal rights which belonged to 
them, thus making his amendment a condition of 
amnesty. It is impossible to do more than indi- 
cate his line of argument. He contended for what 
was right, and relied on arguments which appealed 
to moral convictions, but which were not calculated 
to meet the constitutional doubts of men who, like 
himself, were in favor of equal rights, but who 



CIVIL RIGHTS 405 

were unwilling to exceed their power. In fact, the 
constant reiteration of moral considerations, whose 
force is admitted, inevitably irritates men who are 
considering a legal question, nor is the irritation 
diminished if the argument is presented in sono- 
rous phrase. Mr. Sumner's amendment was 
adopted by the casting vote of the Vice-President, 
but the amended bill was defeated. 

On May 8 another amnesty bill came from the 
House, and Sumner again moved to amend by 
striking out all after the enacting clause and in- 
serting his bill. This was lost by the casting vote 
of the Vice-President. Sumner then moved it 
as an addition, and it was adopted by the same 
vote. The bill thus amended failed, as had its 
predecessors. On May 10 Sumner again intro- 
duced his bill with some slight changes. On 
May 21, when a bill to extend the provisions of 
the so-called " Ku-Klux Act " was pending, and 
an all-night session was ordered, Sumner, who 
was unwell, left the Senate. In his absence, on 
motion of Carpenter, his civil rights bill was taken 
up and passed, amended by inserting a substitute, 
which did not provide against discrimination in 
schools, churches, cemeteries, or juries, and which 
was in other respects imperfect. A protest was 
made against this action in Sumner's absence, 
and he was sent for by friends, but arrived too late. 
An amnesty bill was under consideration, which he 
tried to amend by adding his bill, but his amend- 
ment was rejected and the bill passed, Sumner 



406 CHARLES SUMNER 

protesting. He then moved a reconsideration of 
the vote which had been taken, but without suc- 
cess, and after a vigorous speech, in which he 
charged that the rights of the colored race had 
been sacrificed by the Republican majority in the 
Senate, the discussion closed. The amnesty bill 
became a law; the civil rights bill was not con- 
sidered in the House. Three days before the ses- 
sion ended he moved his bill as an amendment to 
the civil appropriation bill, but it was ruled out of 
order, and so Congress adjourned without action on 
the subject. The next session Sumner was unable 
to attend, but on the first day of the Congress 
which met on December 1, 1873, he again intro- 
duced his bill, in a new draft, but the same in 
effect. 

The debates just alluded to show that Sumner's 
mind was tired and that ill health was telling 
upon him. He could not discuss the question to 
which he had devoted his life without repeating 
himself. His brain worked in channels which had 
been worn deep by use, and he could not escape 
from the lines of thought, or even the phrases, with 
which he had grown so familiar. In his contest 
with younger men like Carpenter and Conkling, 
and among associates of whom some were inclined 
to treat him with scant respect, there was something 
pathetic in his efforts to make them feel what was 
so clear and so vital to him. From this discussion 
no one can get any just idea of Sumner's power. 
It is a sick and weary man, animated by high pur- 



FRENCH ARMS 407 

pose and with indomitable resolution, struggling 
against obstacles of which his own weakness was 
not the least. The form remained, the will and 
purpose were there, the vigor and life were begin- 
ning to fail. 

None the less Mr. Sumner took a leading part 
during the session in other matters. He felt 
keenly the methods and practices which discredited 
the administration, and it was not in his nature 
to let them pass unchallenged. On February 12, 
1872, he introduced a resolution for a select com- 
mittee to investigate the sales of ordnance stores 
made by the government during the Franco-Ger- 
man war, and said that the United States had fallen 
under the suspicion of violating the neutrality laws, 
and that therefore there should be an investigation. 
This led to a long and sharp debate, for any re- 
flection on the government during Grant's admin- 
istration was at once resented by his supporters, 
who felt that his renomination was at stake. The 
fact undoubtedly was that during this war large 
amounts of arms and ammunition were sold by the 
War Department to agents of the French govern- 
ment, and were sent to France. The only author- 
ity for this lay in the statute authorizing the sale 
of arms and munitions of war, which were " dam- 
aged or otherwise unsuitable ; " but the arms sold 
were of our best, and ammunition was manufac- 
tured at our arsenals for the purpose. The original 
purchasing agents were Kemington & Co. ; but 
after their admitted relations with the French 



408 CHARLES SUMNER 

government made further sales to them imprudent, 
later ones were made to a small country lawyer, 
who lived in Ilion, where the Kemingtons were 
established in business. The sales amoimted to 
425,000 arms and 54,000,000 cartridges, and the 
amount of money involved was more than $4,000,- 
000. The circumstances were suspicious, the trans- 
action was illegal, and there was good reason 
to suspect corruption ; therefore the demand for 
an investigation was manifestly proper. The 
debate was very animated, Sumner and Schurz 
speaking for the investigation, while Carpenter, 
Conkling, Edmunds, Morton, Frelinghuysen, and 
others defended the "War Department. Sumner 
and Schurz were charged with want of patriotism, 
with laying the United States open to claims from 
Germany, and with being " emissaries and spies " 
of foreign nations. Schurz took the more active 
part, and carried off the honors of the debate. 
Sumner closed the case, on February 28, with a 
dignified and able presentation of the facts and the 
law. It attacked no one and was free from per- 
sonality, but it left no doubt that an investigation 
must be had. The supporters of the administra- 
tion did not dare to prevent it, and his resolution 
passed, the preamble having been laid on the table 
with his consent. 

In reply to attack he said, "The objection of 
Senators is too much like the old heathen cry, 
' Our country, right or wrong.' Unhappy words, 
which dethrone God and exalt the Devil ! I am 



FRENCH ARMS 409 

for our country with the aspiration that it may be 
always right ; but I am for nothing wrong. When 
I hear of wrong, I insist at all hazards that it shall 
be made right, knowing that in this way I best 
serve my country and every just cause." 

The opponents of the investigation next under- 
took to stifle it by appointing a committee, upon 
which was placed no Republican who favored the 
inquiry and only one Democrat. Sumner, attacked 
by angina pectoris and disabled for a fortnight, 
declined to serve on the committee, and Schurz 
was denied a seat on it, though permitted to attend 
its sessions and examine the witnesses. Both were 
invited to testify and Sumner came, but protested 
against being examined. He was then subpoenaed 
and submitted to examination, but under protest 
because the confidential communications on which 
he had acted were privileged, and because the com- 
mittee was made up, in violation of parliamentary 
law, from persons who did not favor the inquiry. 
He was entirely willing to testify, though treated 
with scant courtesy by members who resented his 
protest. 

The report, in which all the Republican members 
joined, exonerated the "War Department, and so 
accomplished the result for which the committee 
was organized ; but no impartial person can read 
the evidence and feel satisfied with this conclusion. 
The report was discussed in the Senate, but with- 
out final action, and the episode remained as one 
count in the indictment which many Republicans 



410 CHARLES SUMNER 

were framing against the forces of -which the Pre- 
sident was at once the leader and the instrument. 

President Grant had used his appointing power 
very freely to benefit his relatives and personal 
friends, and he was surrounded and influenced by 
politicians who did not command the public con- 
fidence. In the San Domingo affair he had shown 
an obstinacy, a disregard of law, and an impa- 
tience of opposition, which had shaken the confi- 
dence of many ; and the corruption in the depart- 
ments and among his close friends, which in his 
second administration led to scandals without pre- 
cedent in our history, was beginning to be generally 
suspected. At the same time it was clear that the 
power of the executive would be used to compass 
his renomination and election, as it had been used 
in behalf of the politicians whom he favored. The 
Republican party as a whole was so much swayed 
by the prejudices and passions of the war, Grant's 
personal popularity was so great, the Democratic 
party was so thoroughly discredited, that the chance 
of successfully opposing him either in the Republi- 
can convention or at the polls was very slight, but 
many Republicans felt it a public duty to oppose 
him, and among these were the very best of the 
Republican leaders, as for example, Trumbidl and 
Schurz. A convention of Republicans opposed to 
Grant was called to meet at Cincinnati on May 
1, and the movement was supported by influen- 
tial newspapers like the New York "Tribune," 
the Chicago " Tribune," the Cincinnati " Commer- 



GRANT'S RENOMINATION 411 

cial," and others. It was rich in leaders, its prin- 
ciples were sound, it was entirely patriotic, the 
need for it was imperative, but it was unfortunate 
in its choice of a candidate, and its chance of per- 
manent influence was lost when its nominations 
were made. The Republicans who had taken 
prominent part against Grant had expended some 
of their influence in so doing. A man of unques- 
tioned character and ability was needed, who would 
command the respect of the country, and who had 
not been weakened by political antagonisms. Such 
a man was Charles Francis Adams, but unhappily 
he spoke of the new movement somewhat con- 
temptuously and seemed indifferent to the ques- 
tions at issue. Sumner's name was suggested, but 
not with his approval, and finally the choice fell 
upon Horace Greeley, a man of unquestioned abil- 
ity, high character, and intense earnestness, but 
erratic and impulsive. His personal peculiarities 
and his foibles invited ridicule, and the people 
hardly treated him as a serious candidate. The 
movement therefore failed, though Greeley was also 
nominated by the Democrats and received more 
than four ninths of the popular vote, which showed 
the strength of the opposition to Grant. 

Sumner was urged to join this political move- 
ment before the convention at Cincinnati ; but 
though in cordial sympathy with the opposition to 
Grant and in close relations with Trumbull and 
Schurz, he was reluctant to leave the Republican 
party and hoped that Grant might be defeated in 



412 CHARLES SUMNER 

the Republican convention. He indeed sent to Mr. 
F. W. Bird a draft of the platform, which, so far 
as it demanded the equal rights of all, and declared 
that emancipation and enfranchisement were finally 
and forever secure, was in substance adopted ; but 
he refused to declare his position until after the 
convention had adjourned. Against many and 
urgent appeals fi*om both sides he preserved abso- 
lute silence when the prospects of the new move- 
ment were brightest, but after its failure, and when 
Grant's election seemed certain, he took his posi- 
tion. His reasons for hesitation were given in a 
letter to Mr. Bird written late in May : — 

" Nor have I ever given a hint to a human being 
as to my future course. My right hand has never 
spoken it to my left. Of this I shall not speak 
until I can see the whole field, and especially the 
bearing on the colored race. I mean to fail in 
nothing by which they may be helped ; therefore 
all stories as to what I shall do, or shall not, are 
inventions. Nobody will know my position sooner 
than yourself. I honor you constantly. But I 
seek two things : (1) the protection of the colored 
race, and (2) the defeat of Grant." 

It was hard for him to sever his political relations 
with his party and especially with men like his col- 
league Wilson, who had been his warm supporter 
when he was first elected and who had been in sub- 
stantial harmony with him during their long asso- 
ciation in the Senate. His feelings were stated in 
the speech by which he attempted to defeat the 



GRANT'S RENOMINATION 413 

nomination of Grant, making his opportunity un- 
expectedly on May 31 by moving to postpone the 
consideration of an appropriation bill. He spoke 
to a full Senate, and among the listeners were three 
members of the Cabinet and the President's private 
secretaries. It was published under the title of 
" ^Republicanism v. Grantism," and it was the in- 
consistency between these which Sumner tried to 
show. He began thus : — 

" I have no hesitation in declaring myself a mem- 
ber of the Eepublican party, and one of the strait- 
est of the sect. I doubt if any senator can point 
to earlier or more constant service in its behalf. 
I began at the beginning, and from that early day 
have never failed to sustain its candidates and to 
advance its principles. ... To such a party, with 
which so much of my life is intertwined, I have no 
common attachment. Not without regret can I see 
it suffer ; not without a pang can I see it changed 
from its original character, for such a change is 
death. Therefore do I ask, with no common feel- 
ing, that the peril which menaces it may pass away. 
I stood by its cradle ; let me not follow its hearse." 
He then pointed out that the party had become 
" the instrument of one man and his personal will," 
recounting the history of the San Domingo treaty. 
The general tenor of the speech may be gathered 
from a part of the introductory statement : — 

" Not only are Constitution and law disregarded, 
but the presidential office itself is treated as little 
more than a plaything and a perquisite. . . . 



414 CHARLES SUMNER 

Here the details are ample, showing how from the 
beginning this august trust has dropped to be a per- 
sonal indulgence, where palace cars, fast horses, 
and seaside loiterings figure more than duties ; how 
personal aims and objects have been more promi- 
nent than the public interest ; how the presiden- 
tial office has been used to advance his own family 
on a scale of nepotism dwarfing everything of the 
kind in our history, and hardly equaled in the 
corrupt governments where this abuse has most 
prevailed ; how in the same spirit office has been 
conferred upon those from whom he had received 
gifts or benefits, thus making the country repay his 
personal obligations ; how personal devotion to him- 
self, rather than public or party service, has been 
made the standard of favor ; how the vast ap- 
pointing power conferred by the Constitution for 
the general welfare has been employed at his will 
to promote his schemes, to reward his friends, to 
punish his opponents, and to advance his election 
to a second term ; how all these assumptions have 
matured in a personal government, semi-military 
in character and breathing the military spirit." 

The speech amplified fully the details of this 
general outline. It condemned the President un- 
sparingly, and its charges were true, though it 
was possible to put a much more charitable inter- 
pretation upon the facts than Sumner adopted. 
Grant's unfitness and the dangers involved in his 
reelection were clear to Sumner, and he determined 
to make them equally clear to the country. Yet 



GRANT'S RENOMINATION 416 

it was an ineffectual speech. It was too elaborate, 
too much encumbered with historical matter. It 
dealt too much in generalities and sweeping accu- 
sations. If it had recognized President Grant's 
services and his good qualities, it would have 
carried more weight. From the standpoint of the 
practical politician it was a failure, — the attempt 
and not the deed, which " confounds." Grant was 
not a Caesar, as Sumner painted him. There was 
no fear that he would overthrow our form of gov- 
ernment. The real peril was that unchecked cor- 
ruption would lower the public standards, and un- 
dermine that respect for the traditions of honorable 
government upon which free institutions rest ; and 
this danger was realized. 

Sumner's speech provoked bitter replies in the 
Senate and adverse criticism from all supporters 
of the Republican party. He must have been dis- 
appointed in its effect and pained to see the un- 
swerving allegiance of the party to an unfit man. 
Nothing is harder to bear than the sense of hope- 
less failure, coming at a dangerous crisis to a man 
who knows that he is right, but is wholly unable to 
impress his convictions on others. Many friends, 
even while recognizing his sincerity, could not but 
feel that his vision was distorted by his personal 
wrongs, and that his judgment was consequently 
at fault. Among these were George William 
Curtis, Mrs. Child, Whittier, Phillips, and others, 
whose doubts were especially disappointing. Gar- 
rison bitterly attacked him in successive articles. 



416 CHARLES SUMNER 

Many of these lived to learn that Sumner was 
right, and perhaps to regret all the more keenly 
that he did not present his argument more effec- 
tively. 

Though he had opposed Grant he had not yet de- 
clared his readiness to support Greeley ; but after 
the Republican convention had unanimously nomi- 
nated Grant, the next step was necessary. He was 
urged by Republicans to remain silent, by the 
friends of Greeley to speak, and finally, on July 
29, he announced his decision in a reply to a re- 
quest for advice from a committee of colored men. 
He dwelt upon Grant's indignity to the colored 
race in San Domingo and his neglect to help them 
by supporting the civil rights bill ; he repeated 
the charges of his speech ; he contrasted the 
training of Greeley and Grant and their careers, 
and finding in Greeley a lifelong Republican and a 
consistent friend of the negro, he advised them to 
support him, declaring that he proposed to do so. 

Immediately after the publication of this letter 
Mr. Blaine, then the speaker of the House, wrote 
to him an open letter, charging him with being 
false both to his party and his principles, and 
pointing out that he was in singular alliance with 
Confederates and allies of Preston S. Brooks. 

Sumner replied effectively and somewhat tartly : 

" You are greatly concerned about the company 
I keep. To quiet your solicitude, I beg leave to 
say that, in joining the Republicans who brought 
forward an original Abolitionist, I find myself with 



GRANT'S RENOMINATION 417 

so many others devoted to the cause I have always 
served, that I had not missed you until you hastened 
to report absence. . . . You entirely misunder- 
stand me when you introduce an incident of the 
past, and build on it an argument why I should 
not support Horace Greeley. What has Preston 
Brooks to do with the Presidential election? 
Never, while a sufferer, did anybody hear me 
speak of him in unkindness ; and now, after the 
lapse of more than half a generation, I will not 
unite with you in dragging him from the grave, 
where he sleeps, to aggravate the passions of a 
political conflict, and arrest the longing for con- 
cord." 

In this letter he met the charge that a Demo- 
cratic victory would mean a reaction against the 
rights of the colored race, asserting that, with 
Greeley and a Congress elected upon the Demo- 
cratic platform, equal rights would be safe. 

The session, with its sharp personal conflicts, 
and the strain attending the severance of his rela- 
tions with the administration and his party, had 
overtaxed his strength, and when it closed he 
found himself with a feeble and irregular heart, 
and other indications of exhaustion. He was in no 
condition for a presidential campaign, in which his 
feelings were so much enlisted, and his physicians 
advised Europe. He took this advice, and sailed 
on September 3. He was anxious to make one 
speech in Faneuil Hall before he left, but under 
medical advice he abandoned the idea, deterred 



418 CHARLES SUMNER 

not by the fear of death, but by the danger of 
paralysis or some form of mental disability. He 
accordingly wrote his speech, and it was pub- 
lished about the time of his departure. It began : 
" While recognizing party as an essential agency 
and convenience, I could not allow it to restrain 
my conscience against what seemed the require- 
ments of public good ; " and then stated the argu- 
ments for Greeley and against Grant simply and 
directly. He said that his first inclination was not 
to vote at all, but that his doubts were removed when 
the Democratic party accepted a Republican plat- 
form, " the best ever adopted, with a Republican 
candidate who was the most devoted Republican 
ever nominated, thus completely accepting the re- 
sults of the war, and offering the hand of recon- 
ciliation." The speech does not appear to have 
produced any new effect upon the public mind. 
His opposition to Grant had long been declared, and 
it was easy to misrepresent his motives. On reach- 
ing England he learned, to his great surprise and 
annoyance, that he had been nominated as the De- 
mocratic candidate for governor of Massachusetts, 
and he at once cabled a positive refusal. 

He spent a month in Paris, meeting American 
friends, and many distinguished Frenchmen. He 
devoted himself to the galleries, and to buying 
works of art, books, bronzes, china ; but he could 
not forget the abuse of which he had been the tar- 
get, and to which he alluded sadly in his letters. 
Returning to London he was entertained pleasantly 



GRANT'S RENOMINATTON 419 

by old and new English friends, but lie and they 
alike felt that it was his last visit, and there was 
evidently that undercurrent of sadness which inev- 
itably attends the partings of later life. He passed 
a night with John Bright, who wrote of the visit : 
" There was great gentleness in all he said, with 
a sadness and a melancholy, which left upon us 
the impression that he felt himself seriously ill, and 
that his work of life was nearly ended." 

The trip seemed to help him, but his health was 
by no means restored, and he was urged to prolong 
his stay. His sense of duty, however, called him 
back to the Senate, and he sailed on November 
14, reaching New York on the 26th and Washing- 
ton on the 29th, the day of Mr. Greeley's death, 
which was a serious shock to him. 

When the session opened he was so ill that he 
asked to be excused from service on committees, 
and from December 19 until the following March 
he was not in his seat at all, nor did he after 
December 18 take any part in the business of the 
Senate. On the opening day of the session he 
offered the following bill : — 

" Whereas the national unity and good-will 
among fellow citizens can be assured only through 
oblivion of past differences, and it is contrary to 
the usage of civilized nations to perpetuate the 
memory of civil war : Therefore, — Be it enacted, 
That the names of battles with fellow citizens shall 
not be continued in the Army Register, or placed 
on the regimental colors of the United States." 



420 



CHARLES SUMNER 



He attempted without success to press his civil 
rights bill and his bill to secure equality in the 
schools of the District, and spoke briefly on minor 
topics. In his eulogy of his former associate, Gar- 
rett Davis, and in some remarks prepared to be 
spoken of Horace Greeley there was an apparent 
recognition that his own end was near, and a gen- 
tle kindliness which was pathetic. Smarting from 
the wounds inflicted by former friends he felt the 
beauty and the uses of charity. Such was his work 
for the session. 

The bill just quoted provoked an unexpected re- 
sponse. Already in 1862 and 1865 he had intro- 
duced similar propositions without exciting adverse 
criticism, and his purpose was clearly reasonable. 
His position cannot be stated better than in these 
words of Carl Schurz in his eulogy : — 

" Let the dead man have a hearing. This was 
his thought : No civilized nation, from the republics 
of antiquity down to our days, ever thought it wise 
or patriotic to preserve in conspicuous and durable 
form the mementos of victories won over fellow 
citizens in civil war. Why not? Because every 
citizen should feel himself with all others as the 
child of a common country, and not as a defeated 
foe. All civilized governments of our days have 
instinctively followed the same dictate of wisdom 
and patriotism. . . . 

" Should the son of South Carolina, when at 
some future day defending the Republic against 
some foreign foe, be reminded by an inscription on 



THE BATTLE-FLAG BILL 421 

the colors floating over him that under this flag 
the gun was fired that killed his father at Gettys- 
burg ? Should this great and enlightened Repub- 
lic, proud of standing in the front of human pro- 
gress, be less wise, less large-hearted, than the 
ancients were two thousand years ago, and the 
kingly governments of Europe are to-day ? . . . 

" Do you want conspicuous mementos of your 
victories ? They are written upon the dusky brow 
of every freeman who was once a slave ; they are 
written on the gate-posts of a restored Union ; and 
the most glorious of all will be written on the faces 
of a contented people, reunited in common national 
pride." 

Now it happened that in December, 1872, the 
legislature of Massachusetts was holding an extra 
session. A country member introduced a resolu- 
tion condemning the senator's bill, and the com- 
mittee to which it was referred gave him a private 
hearing. On the last day of the session this reso- 
lution was reported by half the committee, and 
after a debate, in which Sumner's purpose was 
wholly misrepresented by those who favored the 
resolution, it was passed. The legislators feared 
the anger of the veterans, and this fear carried the 
resolution. As adopted it described Sumner's bill 
" as an insult to the loyal soldiery of the nation " 
and as "meeting the unqualified condemnation of 
the people of the Commonwealth." 

This astonished Sumner, who wrote : " I cannot 
understand this tempest. The resolution which is 



422 CHARLES SUMNER 

treated so severely is an old inhabitant. I have 
already brought it forward in substance twice be- 
fore this last motion. ... I know that I never 
deserved better of Massachusetts than now. It 
was our State which led in requiring all safeguards 
for liberty and equality ; I covet for her that other 
honor of leading in reconciliation." 

His own bill was not taken up in the Senate, for 
he wished to take part in the debate and his health 
rendered this impossible. The leaders of Massa- 
chusetts, however, rallied to his support, and when 
the new legislature met in January, 1873, an at- 
tempt was made to have the resolution of censure 
rescinded. A very strong petition was presented, 
supported by energetic speech and action ; but the 
movement failed, owing largely to the efforts made 
by members of the previous legislature, who wished 
not to be discredited so promptly and who argued 
that one legislature could not reverse an expression 
of opinion by another. Party feeling, fear of " the 
soldier vote," desire to propitiate the administra- 
tion, carried the day, and it was a year before the 
legislature of Massachusetts removed the blot which 
the legislature of 1872 had placed upon the good 
name of the State. 

Such action from his own State, coming when 
he was prostrated by disease and discouraged by 
the political situation, naturally hurt Mr. Sumner, 
but did not change his purpose. He was deter- 
mined to persuade Massachusetts, and wrote : 
" How a cultivated heathen could differ from me I 



THE BATTLE-FLAG BILL 423 

do not understand. History is full of examples to 
sustain me ; only the sea and tiger are as blind 
and senseless in ferocity as party hate. I long to 
state the case." 

Unhappily his strength was not sufficient for 
the undertaking. During the whole winter he suf- 
fered from recurring attacks of angina pectoris 
with constant nervous pains, sleeplessness, and gen- 
eral weakness. From the time when he left the 
Senate in December until May he was substantially 
confined to the house, and employed himself in 
reading and chatting with his visitors, keeping his 
mind as free from disturbing thoughts as possible. 
He wrote one or two brief letters for publication 
favoring equal civil rights, but he was substantially 
withdrawn from public life. He was naturally de- 
pressed in spirits by his sickness, and there was 
nothing in the political situation or prospect to 
encourage him. Even men in full health were 
saddened by the acts and tendencies of the day. 
At a time when his great and unselfish services 
should have surrounded him with respect and 
honor, it was hard to feel that his influence was 
weakened, and that the legislature of his own State 
was hostile. 

Nor was it so much the condemnation of himself 
as the uncivilized attitude of the Commonwealth 
which depressed him. The change which the four 
years of Grant's administration had wrought in 
the character of the Republican party, and in his 
own position, was bitter to the taste. Add to this 



424 CHAELES SUMNER 

the death of old friends like Seward, Chase, and 
Greeley, the paralysis of Wilson, the retirement of 
others from public life, and it is not surprising 
that he felt the increasing isolation of advancing 
years. A host of friends were busy in writing 
him letters of regard and sympathy, and these were 
very pleasant, but his position was inevitably 
lonely. When the Senate met in special session 
on March 4, 1873, he went to present the creden- 
tials of Governor Boutwell, his new colleague, but 
he was not invited to the caucus of the Republicans, 
and was substantially without party relations. No- 
thing was neglected that could make him feel the 
consequences of opposing the President. 

Sumner refused to visit Europe again, as his 
friends advised, and reached Boston on August 2, 
feeling very much better. He spent the autumn 
there and in visits, writing occasional letters upon 
public questions. 

He grew stronger for a while, so that he could 
enjoy the society of his friends ; he went to the Sat- 
urday Club and other like social organizations ; he 
occasionally spoke briefly, avoiding controversial 
topics and leaving on all who met him an impres- 
sion of gentleness and kindliness. He renewed 
early acquaintances, some of whom had been es- 
tranged from him by political differences, and it 
seemed as if, having abandoned the consideration 
of political questions, he returned to the simple 
friendliness of his youth. It was the pleasant even- 
ing of his life, his last visit to his native State. He 



LAST VISIT TO MASSACHUSETTS 425 

was cordially received, and the general expression 
of respect and regard, which met him everywhere, 
made him feel that he was appreciated at home 
and dispelled the sense of injustice and wrong 
which had clouded the previous winter. He learned 
on her own soil that Massachusetts did not con- 
demn him and that the resolution of the legislature 
did her as much injustice as it did him. He was 
assured on every hand that his reelection to the 
Senate was certain, and he returned to his seat 
refreshed in body and cheered in mind by touching 
again his native earth. 



CHAPTER XXV 

THE LAST SESSION 

Sumner had borne himself during this period 
with entire dignity. He had made no complaints, 
had in no way discussed his party relations, but 
had simply, so far as his health permitted, pro- 
ceeded as before. His absence from the Senate 
and the known condition of his health had per- 
mitted exasperation to subside, so that on his return 
he found his associates disposed to welcome him 
with cordiality. He was not recognized as a Re- 
publican, owing to the opposition of the senators 
who assumed to represent the administration, and 
as a member of the Democratic party he was given 
inferior places on two unimportant committees. 
He was again where he stood when he entered the 
Senate, with such influence only as came from his 
personal character and arguments. 

He showed how great was the improvement in 
his health by at once introducing several measures, 
including his civil rights bill; the bill to secure 
equality in the schools of the District ; a bill for 
the payment of the French spoliation claims ; a 
bill to hasten specie payments; a proposition for 
the election of the president by popular vote for 



THE LAST SESSION 427 

one term ; and one for international arbitration. 
His programme indicated no sense of failing power 
or desire to avoid controversy ; it showed, on the 
contrary, a resolute determination to deal with all 
the more important questions before the country. 

On the second day of the session he moved to 
take up his civil rights bill, saying that it had 
been well considered and would require no debate. 
Objection was made and a reference urged. Sum- 
ner asked for speedy action, but the Senate refused. 
Later a motion to refer it to the committee on the 
judiciary was made, which Sumner opposed. He 
recited the action repeatedly taken on the bill by 
the committee since its first introduction in May, 
1870, and urged that the committee could not fur- 
ther enlighten the Senate, which itself had fully 
debated and indeed passed the bill. He appealed 
personally to Edmunds, to join him in supporting 
the measure, saying : " My desire, the darling 
desire, if I may say so, of my soul, at this moment, 
is to close forever this great question, so that it 
shall never again intrude into these chambers, — 
so that hereafter in all our legislation there shall 
be no such words as ' black ' or ' white,' but that 
we shall speak only of citizens and of men." 

Finally, on a promise from Mr. Frelinghuysen, 
in which Edmunds joined, that the bill should be 
reported promptly, Sumner consented to the refer- 
ence. It was his last speech on the subject. Be- 
fore the bill was reported, he died ; but after his 
death it passed the Senate with some changes, and 



428 CHARLES SUMNER 

ultimately became the law, only to be declared un- 
constitutional by the Supreme Court, which con- 
strued the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments 
strictly, thereby justifying Sumner's objection to 
the wording of these amendments and his advo- 
cacy of more sweeping language when they were 
under discussion in Congress. He lived to urge 
and to see enacted every law which Congress had 
the power to pass in aid of equal rights and against 
distinctions of color. He proposed and pressed 
nearly to enactment, the act which he considered 
necessary to complete the work, and its ultimate 
failure came from causes beyond his control. All 
that man could do he did for the cause so near to 
his heart. 

This year for the first time he felt that he could 
leave the Senate and attend the New England din- 
ner in New York on December 22, and there he 
made his last speech outside the Senate. It was a 
brilliant occasion, and he was welcomed with the 
warmest demonstrations by the whole audience. 
The genuine enthusiasm of the distinguished com- 
pany made Mr. Sumner feel again that his coun- 
trymen were not alienated, and it was a pleasant 
memory during the few weeks of life that remained 
to him. 

The rest may be told briefly. After the holiday 
recess and his attempt to pass the civil rights bill 
Sumner continued in apparently good health until 
the beginning of March. He busied himself in 
editing his speeches on the civil rights bill, and 



THE LAST SESSION 429 

in the preparation of his Works. He was pre- 
pared to support the nomination of Caleb Cushing 
for chief justice, believing him well fitted for 
the position and likely to be sound on questions 
involving equal rights. When his name was with- 
drawn and that of Chief Justice Waite was sub- 
stituted, he made in executive session a speech 
upon the office and its requirements, with very in- 
teresting reminiscences of Marshall and others 
whom he had known. He spoke on some other 
matters briefly. The legislature of Massachusetts 
rescinded in February, 1874, its resolution of cen- 
sure, and the record of this action was delivered to 
him on March 6. This was a great gratification, 
and was the theme of many pleasant letters. His 
attitude towards the world at this time may be 
given in the words of a friend : — 

" I saw him frequently and familiarly during the 
last four months of his life, and wish to give my 
testimony to the gentleness and kindliness of his 
temper during all that time, and to the fact that 
he uttered no word of harshness or censure in my 
hearing concerning any human being." 

The clouds which had shadowed the last years 
had disappeared ; he was at peace with mankind, 
and his work was done. His comrades in the great 
battle were passing away, and he was not loath to 
lay down his burden. Early in March the attacks 
of angina pectoris began to recur. On March 6 
he spoke for the last time in the Senate on the bill 
for the centennial exhibition at Philadelphia. On 



430 CHARLES SUMNER 

the 10th he visited the Senate, where Senator Bout- 
well presented the resolution of the Massaclrasetts 
legislature, and remained there some time talking 
with friends, but complaining of pain. At six 
o'clock Henry L. Pierce and B. P. Poore found him 
writing letters, and remained to dine with him. 
Almost immediately after they left he had a severe 
attack of pain, followed by others, which were 
deadened by injections of morphine, and from that 
time he slowly sank till his death on the afternoon 
of March 11. E. R. Hoar, Carl Schurz, and others 
of his friends were with him during the day, and 
to Judge Hoar he said several times : " You must 
take care of the civil rights bill, — my bill, the 
civil rights bill, — don't let it fail ; " and his last 
message was : " Judge, tell Emerson how much I 
love and revere him ; " and so passed away the man 
of whom Emerson said that he had " the whitest 
soul of any man I ever knew." 

It would be easy to fill a volume with extracts 
from the eulogies which were pronounced after his 
death, but it may be permitted to preserve at least 
a few words from E. R. Hoar, who held his hand 
as he died : — 

" Wherever the news of the event spreads 
through this broad land, not only in this city among 
his associates in the public councils, not only in the 
old Commonwealth of which he was the pride and 
ornament, but in many quiet homes, in many a cabin 
of the poor and lowly, there is to-day inexpressible 
tenderness and profound sorrow." 



THE LAST SESSION 431 

Charles Sumner was a great man in his absolute 
fidelity to principle, his clear perception of what 
his country needed, his unflinching- courage, his 
perfect sincerity, his persistent devotion to duty, 
his indifference to selfish considerations, his high 
scorn of anything petty or mean. He was essen- 
tially simple to the end, brave, kind, and pure. In 
his prime he was a very eloquent speaker, and his 
unbending adherence to the highest morality gave 
him insight and power in dealing with great ques- 
tions and a strong hold upon the moral forces of 
the country. As Emerson said, he was for many 
years the " conscience of the Senate." 

He was a man of great ability but not of the 
highest intellectual power, nor was he a master of 
style. He was not incisive in thought or speech. 
His orations were overloaded, his rhetoric was often 
turgid, he was easily led into irrelevance and undue 
stress upon undisputed points. His untiring indus- 
try as a reader had filled his memory with associa- 
tions which perhaps he valued unduly. Originally 
modest and not self-confident, the result of his long 
contest was to make him egotistical and dogmatic. 
There are few successful men who escape these pen- 
alties of success, the common accompaniment of 
increasing years. A man who is trying to produce 
definite results naturally and properly wishes to 
know how far he has succeeded. No one aims at 
a mark without caring to discover whether his shot 
hits, and the speaker or writer who is seeking to 
influence public opinion must know whether his 



432 CHARLES SUMNER 

words tell, in order to guide his future action. 
From this proper interest the transition to egotism 
is easy. Sumner's naively simple nature, his con- 
fidence in his fellows, and his lack of humor com- 
bined to prevent his concealing what many feel but 
are better able to hide. 

From the time he entered public life till he died 
he was a strong force constantly working for right- 
eousness. He had absolute faith in the principles 
of free government as laid down in the Declaration 
of Independence, and he gave his life to secure 
their practical recognition. They were not to him 
glittering generalities, but ultimate, practical truths, 
and in this faith Lincoln and Sumner were one. 
To Sumner more than to any single man, except 
possibly Lincoln, the colored race owes its emanci- 
pation and such measure of equal rights as it now 
enjoys. To Sumner more than to any single man 
the whole country owes the prevention of war with 
England and France when such a war would have 
meant the disruption of the Union. 

Such men are rare in the public life of any 
nation, and when we depart from the principles 
which they believe and practice we may well trem- 
ble for the permanence of our government, for, as 
Lowell said, this will endure only " so long as the 
ideas of the founders remain dominant." 



INDEX 



INDEX 



Abolitionists, begin with Lundy and 
Garrison, 37 ; form anti-slavery 
societies, 37 ; their platform, 37, 
38; accused by South of inciting 
negroes to insurrection, 38; perse- 
cution of, in North, 39 ; petition 
Congress, 40; denounce Sumner for 
slowness to attack slavery, 91, 92. 

Adams, Charles Francis, opposes ad- 
mission of Texas, 43 ; denounces 
Winthrop's vote for Mexican war, 
46; presides over convention of 
Conscience Whigs, 52; supports 
Sumner's resolutions against Mex- 
ican war, 54; supports Palfrey's 
resolutions at Whig convention of 
1847, 54 ; signs call for Free-Soil 
convention, 58 ; nominated for vice- 
presidency, 59 ; opposes compro- 
mise of 1850, 74 ; opposes coalition 
with Democrats, 76; suggests testi- 
monial to Sumner in 1856, 155; 
elected to Congress, 162 ; sup- 
ports compromise measures in 1861, 
189; has breach with Sumner on this 
point, 189 ; opposes issuing of letters 
of marque, 241; warns Russell of 
consequences of failure to stop 
Laird rams, 243; speaks contemptu- 
ously of movement against Grant, 
411. 

Adams, John Quincy, his course in 
Congress admired by Sumner, 31; 
fights for the right of petition, 40 ; 
votes against Mexican war bill, 46; 
quoted by Sumner with regard to 
emancipation, 202. 

Adolphus, John Leycester, meets 
Sumner in 1838, 21. 

Agassiz, J. L. R., visits Sumner, 346. 

Alabama, beginning of secession in, 
180. 



Alaska, acquired by United States, 
338, 339. 

Alderson, Baron Edward Hall, enter- 
tains Sumner, 20. 

Allen, Charles, bolts Taylor's nomi- 
nation, 58. 

Allston, Washington, in Boston soci- 
ety of 1840, 28; his death, 30. 

"American Jurist," contributions of 
Sumner to, 8, 10, 14. 

Andrew, John A., at convention of 
Conscience Whigs, 52; appoints 
delegates to Peace Conference, 192; 
applauds Wilkes's action in Trent 
affair, 209 ; opposes renomination 
of Lincoln, 271 ; reluctant to antag- 
onize Johnson in 1865, 295. 

Anti-Masons, connection of C. P. Sum- 
ner with, 4, 7. 

Argyll, Duchess of, complains to Sum- 
ner of his speech against ratification 
of Johnson-Clarendon treaty, 368. 

Argyll, Duke of, meets Sumner in 
1857, 159; entertains him in 1859, 
164 ; regrets Sumner's denuncia- 
tion of England, 252. 

Arkansas, reconstruction of, under 
Lincoln, 269 ; refusal of Congress 
to recognize, 269. 

Ashley, James M., removed from 
governorship of Montana by Grant, 
382. 

Atchison, David R., urges South to 
hold Kansas at all costs, 134. 

Austin, Charles, meets Sumner in 
1838, 21. 

Babcock, General Orville E., sent by 
Grant to investigate San Domingo, 
379 ; makes treaties to annex it, 
380; prepares to defend Baez gov- 
ernment by force, 380. 



436 



INDEX 



Baez, Buenaventura, President of San 
Domingo, proposes annexation, 379; 
makes treaties with Babcock, 380 ; 
supported by United States navy, 
380; criticised by Sumner, 388, 
398. 

Baillie, Joanna, met by Sumner in 
1838, 21. 

Bancroft, George, in Boston in 1840, 
28. 

Banks, Nathaniel P., his share in 
reconstruction of Louisiana, 283 ; 
introduces bill to authorize Presi- 
dent to protect American citizens 
by reprisals, 354. 

Bates, Edward, gives United States 
marshals instructions to execute 
the Fugitive Slave Law, 198. 

Bates, Joshua, writes to Seward op- 
posing issue of letters of marque, 
240, 241. 

Bell, John, candidate for presidency 
in 1860, 176. 

Belper, Lord, visited by Sumner in 
1859, 164. 

Benjamin, Judah P., on necessity of 
counteracting personal liberty laws, 
126. 

Benton, Thomas H., presents petition 
of New Mexico against slavery, 66; 
introduces bill to compensate Texas, 
09. 

Bigelow, John, applauds Wilkes's 
action in Trent affair, 209; advocates 
Sumner's reelection to Senate, 232. 

Binney, Horace, entertains Sumner, 
11. 

Bird, F. W., sent a platform by Sum- 
ner for use in Republican conven- 
tion, 412. 

Blaine, James G., on reasons for Sum- 
ner's deposition from committee on 
foreign affairs, 396 ; charges Sum- 
ner with alliance with Confederates, 
416. 

Blair, Montgomery, disapproves 
Wilkes's action in Trent affair, 209. 

Blessington, Lady, meets Sumner in 
1838, 21. 

Border States, favorable to emanci- 
pation in 1850, 68 ; importance of 
retaining, in 1861, 185, 197; policy 
of Lincoln toward, 197, 198; es- 



trangement of, risked by Sumner, 
202 ; furnish troops to Union army ( 
204 ; unquestionably saved by 1863, 
235. 

Boston, society in, 14-16, 28 ; Anthony 
Burns case in, 109, 110; last visit 
of Sumner to, 424. 

Boston Latin School, studies of Sum- 
ner at, 5. 

Bout well, George S., urges coalition 
of Democrats and Free-Soilers on 
some other than Sumner, 83 ; Dem- 
ocratic candidate for governor, 
elected over Winthrop, 85 ; secre- 
tary of treasury, 363 ; elected to 
Senate, 424; presents resolutions 
of Massachusetts rescinding censure 
of Sumner, 430. 

Breckinridge, John C, candidate for 
President in 1860, 176. 

Bright, John, entertains Sumner in 
1857, 159 ; writes to Sumner against 
issue by United States of letters of 
marque, 240 ; informs Sumner of 
English feeling, 247; the firmest 
friend of the North, 248; said to 
have been misled by Sumner as to 
Reverdy Johnson's mission, 357 ; 
prepared by Sumner for rejection 
of Johnson treaties, 360 ; indignant 
at Sumner's speech on rejection of 
Johnson-Clarendon treaty, 368; on 
Sumner's sadness on his last English 
visit, 419. 

Broglie, Due de, met by Sumner in 
Paris, 19. 

Brooks, Preston S., assaults Sumner 
in Senate, 145, 146; announces in- 
tention of killing Sumner if neces- 
sary, 146; not dealt with by Senate, 
149; report of House committee 
upon, 149; fined in Circuit Court, 
150; censured by House, 150 ; re- 
signs and is reelected, 150; given 
dinner by constituents, 150; praised 
by Davis and Mason, 151 ; generally 
approved by the South, 151, 152; 
Sumner's opinion of, 155, 417; his 
death, 158. 

Brougham, Lord, becomes acquainted 
with Sumner, 20; heard by Sumner 
in Parliament, 22. 

Brown, B. Gratz, favors resolution to 



INDEX 



437 



retaliate on Southern prisoners, 
280; offers proviso to strike out 
" white " from Nebraska constitu- 
tion, 326. 

Brown, John, his career in Kansas, 
156; his raid in Virginia, 170. 

Brown, Joseph E., opposes secession, 
180. 

Brown-Se"quard, Dr., his treatment of 
Sumner for spinal trouble, 161. 

Bruce, Sir Frederick, tells Sumner 
England will fight rather than pay 
Alabama claims, 341; tells Sumner 
England has accepted arbitration, 
342. 

Buchanan, James, agrees with Clay 
and Webster as to finality of com- 
promise, 87; elected President, 157; 
approves Lecompton constitution, 
167 ; recommends admission of Kan- 
sas as a slave State, 168; incompe- 
tent in 1860, 182; his message on 
secession, 183; vacillates regarding 
Fort Sumter, 183; urges compro- 
mise, 1S4 ; hesitation of secession- 
ists to attack, for fear of offending 
Democrats, 185 ; tells Sumner that 
Massachusetts ought to adopt Crit- 
tenden resolutions, 190. 

Burns, Anthony, recaptured as a fugi- 
tive slave, 109, 110, 118. 

Butler, Andrew P., admits failure of 
attempts to prevent agitation, 88 ; 
has seat near Sumner, 89 ; claims 
superior patriotism for South, 111, 
113 ; denounces Sumner for refusal 
to carry out Fugitive Slave Act, 
111, 112 ; asks Sumner if he would 
advise Massachusetts to pass a Fu- 
gitive Slave Act, 126 ; virulent at- 
tack upon, by Sumner, 139-142 ; his 
death, 158. 

Butler, General Benjamin F., calls 
slaves "contraband of war," 198; 
fails in conducting impeachment of 
Johnson, 348 ; leads House to pass 
resolution for San Domingo Com 
mission, 391; prevented from get- 
ting Republican nomination in Mas- 
sachusetts by Sumner and Wilson, 
400 ; becomes an enemy to Sumner, 
400; gains influence over Grant, 
401. 



Cabral, , rival of Baez for presi- 
dency of San Domingo, 379. 

Calhoun, John C, heard in Senate by 
Sumner, 12; demands annexation of 
Texas, 41; makes treaty of annexa- 
tion, 42; in 1849, issues address de- 
manding union of South to secure 
rights of slaveholders, 67. 

California, settlement and first con- 
stitution of, 65, 69 ; admitted to 
Union in 1850, 70, 71. 

Cameron, Simon, replies to Butler's 
suggestion as to " contraband of 
war," 198 ; opposes annexation of 
San Domingo, 385. 

Campbell, Baron John, meets Sum- 
ner in 1838, 21. 

Campbell , Thomas, met by Sumner in 
1838, 21. 

Canada, Confederate raid from, into 
Vermont, 279 ; cession of, in pay- 
ment of Alabama claims suggested 
by Fish, 370, 372. 

Canning, George, quoted by Sumner 
in 1863, 251. 

Carlisle, Earl of, entertains Sumner 
in 1838, 21. 

Carlyle, Thomas, meets Sumner in 
1838, 21. 

Carpenter, Matthew H., attributes 
Sumner's attack on Grant to per- 
sonal feeling, 390 ; votes for Sum- 
ner's removal from chairmanship, 
395 ; moves to take up Sumner's 
civil rights bill, 405; defends War 
Department against Schurz and 
Sumner, 409. 

Cass, Lewis, requests Sumner to 
write article on American boundary 
claims, 23 ; nominated for President, 
57; tries to prevent Massachusetts 
Democrats from voting for Sumner, 
82 ; tries to suppress agitation, 87 ; 
condemns Sumner's Kansas speech, 
142; resigns from Buchanan's Cabi- 
net, 183. 

Casserly, Eugene, opposes annexation 
of San Domingo, 385. 

Caucus, Sumner's views on, 343. 

Cavour, Count, meets Sumner in 1859, 
163. 

Chandler, Zachariah, favors bill to 
retaliate on Southern prisoners, 



438 



INDEX 



280; attacks Sumner for criticising 
Grant, 390; favors removal of Sum- 
ner from chairmanship, 395. 

Chanuing, William Ellery, his influ- 
ence over Sumner, 15 ; in Boston 
society in 1840, 28; attacks Web- 
ster's course in Creole case, 31; his 
death, 49. 

Chase, Salmon P., elected to Senate 
by a coalition, C3; urges Sumner to 
accept Free-Soil nomination for 
Senate, 81 ; more of a politician than 
Sumner, 86; friendly with Sumner, 
S9 ; offers resolutions against execu- 
tive sessions, 9S; writes "Appeal of 
Independent Democrats," 106; at- 
tacked by Douglas, 106; approves 
Sumner's speech advocating resist- 
ance to Fugitive Slave Act, 121 ; 
votes for repeal of Fugitive Slave 
Act, 127 ; visited by Sumner in 1S55, 
128 ; considers threats of disunion 
idle, 179; opposes compromises in 
1861, 194; at dinner to discuss Trent 
affair, 212 ; offers to resign, 236 ; 
approves plan to issue letters of 
marque, 241 ; approves Sumner's de- 
nunciation of England, 252 ; agrees 
with Sumner regarding national 
bank bill, 26S ; hopes for Republican 
nomination in 1864, 271; his ap- 
pointment to succeed Taney urged 
by Sumner, 27S; appointed by Lin- 
coln, 27S; admits negro to bar, 278; 
bust of, placed in Supreme Court 
room, 279; visits Johnson to urge 
negro suffrage, 291 ; gives a casting 
vote in impeachment case, 350 ; his 
right to do so questioned by Sum- 
ner, 350 ; not a Republican in 1S69, 
362. 

Chevalier, Michel, met by Sumner in 
Paris, 19. 

Child, Lydia Maria, disapproves of 
Sumner's attack on Grant, 415. 

Chinese, excluded from naturaliza- 
tion, 376. 

Choate, Rufus, in Boston society in 
1S40, 28; favors English claim of 
right to search slaves, 30 ; leads 
Massachusetts Whigs in 1850, 74. 

Civil Service, appointments in, accord- 
ing to merit advocated by Sumner, 



55 ; attempt to regulate in 1863, 
237 ; Sumner's bill to improve, in 
1864, 267; regulated by Tenure of 
Office Act, 329, 330. 

Clarendon, Lord, entertains Sumner 
in 1859, 164 ; negotiates treaties 
with Reverdy Johnson, 360; on 
Motley's instructions, 371. 

Clark, Daniel, offers amendment to 
Crittenden resolutions, 187. 

Clay, Clement C, abuses Sumner, 112. 

Clay, Henry, voted for in 1844 by 
Sumner, 33 ; humiliated by Taylor's 
nomination, 57 ; introduces compro- 
mise in 1S50, 70; signs manifesto 
against renewal of agitation, 87 ; in- 
troduces resolutions on Shadrach 
case, 88 ; retires from Senate, S9; 
favors ineligibility of President for 
reelection, 401. 

Clayton, John M., on the severity of 
the Kansas slave code, 133. 

Cleveland, Henry R., member of 
"Five of Clubs," 15. 

Cobb, Howell, elected Speaker, 69. 

Cobden, Richard, meets Sumner in 
1857, 159 ; on hostility of three 
fourths of Commons to North in 
1861, 210 ; informs Sumner of Eng- 
lish feeling, 247; displeased with 
Sumner's speech against England, 
252. 

Colfax, Schuyler, defeats bill to per- 
mit negroes to carry mails, 224 ; 
as Vice-President appealed to by 
Sumner to dissuade Grant from 
San Domingo project, 3S9 ; gives 
casting votes for and against Sum- 
ner's civil rights bill, 405. 

Colorado, proposal to admit, in 1S66, 
with white suffrage, 315, 316; with 
negro suffrage in 1867, 327. 

Coltmau, Justice Thomas, entertains 
Sumner, 20. 

Compromise of 1850, 70, 71 ; supported 
by manifesto of leaders in 1S51, S7 ; 
claimed by Douglas to have repealed 
Missouri Compromise, 104, 105. 

Conkling, Roscoe, attacks Sumner for 
pressing amendment to naturaliza- 
tion act, 376 ; proposal to put, on 
committee on foreign relations, 
388 ; attacks Sumner for defaming 



INDEX 



439 



Grant, 390 ; announces that Sumner 
will be removed from chairmanship 
of committee on foreign relations, 
394; votes for his removal, 395; de- 
fends War Department against 
Sumner and Schurz, 408. 

Conness, John, charges Sumner with 
indifference to rights of white for- 
eigners, 355. 

Constitution, Sumner's view of, in re- 
lation to slavery, 32, 94; its relation 
to Fugitive Slave Law, 94, 95 ; 120- 
122 ; in relation to personal liberty 
laws, 121, 122 ; proposed amendment 
of, in 1861, 194 ; in relation to eman- 
cipation, 202. 226 ; in relation to 
secession, 217-219 ; in relation to 
reconstruction, 257-259, 287, 323 ; 
thirteenth amendment to, 259-261 ; 
in relation to power of Congress to 
abolish slavery by law, 260 ; four- 
teenth amendment to, 304, 310-314, 
316, 317 ; in relation to Tenure of 
Office Act, 330; desire of Sumner 
to amend presidential term in, 331, 
401; power of Congress to impose 
conditions on States, 351 ; fifteenth 
amendment to, 358 ; in relation to 
civil rights bill, 404. 

Corruption, suspicion of, under 
Grant's administration, in War De- 
partment, 407, 408 ; denied by ex- 
amining committee of Senate, 409. 

Corwin, Thomas, chairman of com- 
mittee in 1861, 186 ; defeats resolu- 
tion pledging United States to pro- 
tect slave property, by casting vote, 
187 ; makes treaty by which the 
United States shall lend Mexico 
enough to satisfy France, 220. 

Cousin, Victor, met by Sumner in 
Paris, 19. 

Cowan, Edgar, moves to exclude ne- 
groes from voting in District, 264 ; 
attacks proposed fourteenth amend- 
ment, 311. 

Cranworth, Lord, meets Sumner in 
1859, 159. 

Crawford, Thomas, friendly with 
Sumner, 23 ; aided by Sumner, 29. 

Creole, case of, 30. 

Crittenden, J. J., introduces compro- 
mise resolutions, 187 ; presents 



petition from Massachusetts in 
favor of his measures, 192 ; intro- 
duces resolution declaring object of 
war, 200. 

Crowder, Richard B., meets Sumner 
in 1838, 21. 

Cuba, question of recognizing belli- 
gerency of insurgents in, 369, 371. 

Curtis, Benjamin R., supports com- 
promise in 1S50, 74 ; on the Dred 
Scott case, 165 ; his argument in 
Johnson impeachment case, 348. 

Curtis, George William, asks Sumner 
his opinion of Brooks, 155 ; doubts 
Sumner's judgment in attacking 
Grant in 1872, 415. 

Cushing, Caleb, leads Democratic 
opposition to Sumner's election in 
1851, 82 ; applauds Wilkes's action 
in Trent affair, 209 ; visits Sumner 
in Washington, 346 ; consulted re- 
garding Motley's instructions, 371 ; 
mentioned for chief justice inlS74, 
429. 

Dana, Richard H., Jr., leader of Con- 
science Whigs, 44 ; Free-Soiler in 
1850, 74 ; opposes coalition with 
Democrats, 76 ; suggests testimonial 
to Sumner in 1856, 155. 

David, Pierre Jean, met by Sumner 
in Paris, 20. 

Davis, Garrett, eulogized by Sumner, 
420. 

Davis, Henry Winter, opposes recog- 
nition of Liberia and Hayti, 222 ; 
opposes renomination of Lincoln, 
271. 

Davis, Jefferson, approves Brooks's 
assault on Sumner, 150, 151 ; intro- 
duces resolutions on non-interven- 
tion with slavery in the territories, 
171 ; elected president of Confeder- 
ate States, 182 ; said in England to 
have created a nation, 219 ; impris- 
oned in 1865, 303 ; proposed bill to 
alter qualifications of jurors in his 
trial, 318. 

Davis, John, votes against Mexican 
war bill, 45. 

Davis, Reuben, offers resolution in 
1861 on duty of federal government 
to protect slave property, 186, 187. 



440 



INDEX 



Dawes, Henry L., on Sumner's share 

in nomination of Johnson, 273. 
Demetz, Frederic Auguste, met by 

Sumner in Paris, 19. 
Democratic party, nominates Cass in 
1848, 57 ; coalesces with Free-Soil- 
ers in Massachusetts and Ohio, 63 ; 
adopts Free-Soil principles in Mas- 
sachusetts, 75 ; coalesces with Free- 
Soilers and carries legislature, 7G- 
80 ; reluctant to support Sumner, 
82 ; finally agrees to elect him 
senator, 83, 84 ; ceases coalition 
with Free-Soilers after failures of 
1853, 100 ; not so great a hindrance 
to freedom as Whig party, 125 ; 
successful in election of 1856, 157 ; 
divides on question of Lecompton 
constitution, 1G7, 170 ; expectation 
of help from, by South, 181 ; its 
platform and defeat in election of 
1864, 272; discredited after war, 
410 ; nominates Horace Greeley in 
1862, 411 ; willingness of Sumner to 
cooperate with, 417, 418. 
Denman, Lord Thomas, entertains 

Sumner, 20. 
Denmark, negotiates treaty to sell St. 

Thomas to United States, 361. 
De Tocqueville, Alexis, meets Sumner 

in 1857, 159. 
De Witt, Alexander, signs Address of 

Independent Democrats, 106. 
Dexter, Franklin, in suit against Sum- 
ner, 33. 
Dickens, Charles, visits Sumner in 

Washington, 345. 
Diplomatic history, negotiations con- 
cerning right of search to enforce 
slave trade, 30 ; Creole case, 30, 31 ; 
negotiations relative to annexation 
of Texas, 42 ; treaty of Guadeloupe 
Hidalgo, 56 ; arbitration of San 
Juan boundary, 195 ; the Trent 
affair, 208-214 ; English demands, 
210 ; chance for a diplomatic vic- 
tory seen by Sumner, 210, 211 ; 
Seward's reply, 214 ; plan to keep 
European nations from intervention 
in Mexico, 220, 221 ; treaty to sup- 
press slave trade, 223 ; dangers of 
mediation in 1862, 241 ; dealing 
regarding " Laird rams," 242, 243 ; 



seizure of the Florida by the Wa- 
chusett, 277, 278; Alaska treaty, 
338, 339 ; negotiations regarding 
war claims on England, 341-343 ; 
treaties regarding rights of Ameri- 
can naturalized citizens, 355, 356 ; 
mission of Reverdy Johnson to Eng- 
land, 357, 360 ; Clarendon-Johnson 
treaties rejected by Senate, 360, 
364-368 ; rejection of treaty for 
purchase of St. Thomas, 361 ; ap- 
pointment of Joint High Commis- 
sion on Alabama claims, 368, 369 ; 
Geneva arbitration, 368, 369 ; ques- 
tion of recognition of Cuban belli- 
gerency, 369 ; query as to cession of 
Canada, 370 ; negotiations leading 
to treaties annexing San Domingo, 
379-381, 397 ; treaty of Washington, 
400. 

District of Columbia, slave trade 
abolished in, 71 ; emancipation in, 
urged by Sumner in 1S61, 205 ; 
passage of bill to emancipate in, 
205-207 ; attempt of Sumner to 
carry bill to allow negroes to testify 
in, 224 ; attempts of Sumner to 
secure negro suffrage in, 2G4 ; equal 
rights for negroes secured in, 264, 
344 ; bill to give negroes suffrage 
in, 325. 

Dixon, Archibald, offers amendment 
to Nebraska act repealing Missouri 
Compromise, 103. 

Dixon, James, dissents from Sumner's 
theory of state suicide, 219. 

Dodge, Augustus C, introduces bill 
to organize Nebraska, 102. 

Doolittle, James S., on Sumner's con- 
trol over the Senate, 263 ; urges 
Sumner to withdraw term "white- 
washing " applied to Johnson's mes- 
sage, 305. 

Douglas, Stephen A., offers bills or- 
ganizing new Territories and admit- 
ting slavery, 66 ; announces finality 
of Compromise, 87 ; reports Kansas- 
Nebraska bill, 104 ; his reasons, 
105, 106; denounces Chase and Sum. 
ner, 106 ; denounces protest of New 
England clergy, 108 ; reads report 
on Kansas, 136 ; denounces Emi- 
grant Aid societies, 137 ; his abusive 



INDEX 



441 



language in debate, 137 ; bitter ridi- 
cule of, by Sumner, 140, 142 ; makes 
abusive reply, 142, 143 ; bitter re- 
tort of Sumner to, 143, 144; declines 
to interfere during Brooks's attack 
on Sumner, 147 ; speaks against 
Lecompton constitution, 160, 167 ; 
his debates with Lincoln, 169; at- 
tacked by Sumner as candidate for 
presidency, 176. 

Dred Scott decision, 165 ; quoted in 
18G4 to prevent granting suffrage to 
negroes, 263 ; ignored by Chase in 
admitting negro to practice before 
Supreme Court, 278. 

Durham, Lord, entertains Sumner in 
1838, 21. 

Ecuador, proposal of Seward to pun- 
ish, in 1866, 321. 

Edmunds, George F., offers amend- 
ment to compel equal suffrage in 
Nebraska, 326 ; opposes Sumner's 
amendment to strike out " white " 
from naturalization acts, 375 ; at- 
tacks Sumner for criticising Grant, 
390 ; favors removal of Sumner 
from chairmanship, 395 ; defends 
War Department against Sumner, 
408 ; asked by Sumner not to pre- 
vent action on the civil rights 
bill, 427. 

Edmundson, Henry A., prepared to 
aid Brooks in beating Sumner, 147 ; 
not censured by House, 149, 150. 

Election of 1840, indifference of Sum- 
ner in, 28 ; position of Sumner in 
election of 1844, 33 ; election of 
1848, 56-61; election of 1S52, 96, 
97 ; election of 1856, 155, 157 ; con- 
gressional election of 1858, 169, 170; 
election of 1860, 176, 177 ; elections 
of 1862, 234 ; election of 1864, 271- 
277 ; congressional elections of 1866, 
324 ; election of 1872, 410-417. 

Eliot, Samuel A., Whig candidate 
elected to Congress over Sumner, 
73. 

Emancipation, held by Sumner to be 
the inevitable end of war, 198, 199 ; 
considered necessary to gain Euro- 
pean sympathy, 199 ; urged by Sum- 
ner after Bull Run, 200; disavowed 



by Crittenden resolution, 200; de- 
manded publicly by Sumner in 1861, 
201, 202; urged by Sumner in con- 
nection with confiscation bill, 225, 
226 ; continually pressed upon Lin- 
coln by Sumner, 229; Lincoln's pro- 
clamation declaring, 230 ; Sumner's 
share in causing, 230; bill to aid it 
in Missouri, 237 ; introduction of 
amendments to Constitution abolish- 
ing slavery, 259-261; completed by 
fifteenth amendment, 261; attempt 
of Sumner to hasten by congressional 
enactment, 269 ; how far gamed by 
Sumner, 432. 

Emerson, Ralph Waldo, on Sumner's 
Phi Beta Kappa oration, 50 ; his bit- 
ter remark on Webster in 1850, 74; 
on significance of Brooks's assault 
on Sumner, 153 ; visits Sumner in 
Washington, 396 ; on Sumner's 
moral leadership in 1869, 3G2; Sum- 
ner's last message to, 430. 

England, Sumner's visit to, in 1838, 
20-23, 24 ; danger of war with, over 
Oregon question, 34; visited by 
Sumner in 1857, 159 ; and again in 
1S59, 163, 164 ; expectation of South- 
ern leaders to coerce, through cotton, 
in 1861, 180 ; considers Seward hos- 
tile, 208 ; recognizes Southern bel- 
ligerency, 208 ; demands reparation 
in Trent affair, 209, 210 ; ready for 
war, 210 ; sneers at Sumner's speech, 
216 ; intervenes in Mexico, 220 ; 
makes treaty to abolish slave trade, 
223; building of Confederate cruisers 
in, 236 ; mediation by, agitated in 
Parliament, 241 ; effect of Emanci- 
pation Proclamation upon, 242 ; 
strained relations with, in 1862, 
242, 243; letters of Sumner to, ur- 
ging neutrality, 243-248 ; Sumner's 
speech on errors of, 24S-252 ; indig- 
nation in, at Seward's speech, 252 ; 
Sumner's justification of his attack 
upon, 253 ; denounces seizure of 
Florida by Wachusett, 277; wishes 
to settle claims arising out of war, 
340; willing to negotiate, but reluc- 
tant to arbitrate, 341, 342; makes 
Johnson-Clarendon treaties, 360, 
364 ; indirect claims against, state 



442 



INDEX 



by Sumner, 365-367 ; indignant at 
Sumner's language, 368 ; recognizes 
American claims by consenting to 
arbitrate, 309 ; mission of Motley to, 
370, 371; last visit of Sumner to, 
418, 419. 

Evarts, William M., his special mis- 
sion to England in 1863, 245 ; anec- 
dote of, at Sumner's house, 345; 
conducts defence of Johnson in im- 
peachment, 348. 

Everett, Edward, on inevitableness of 
slavery, 38, 39 ; on Sumner's Phi 
Beta Kappa oration, 50 ; supports 
compromise in 1850, 74; elected to 
Senate, 97 ; presents petition of New 
England clergy against Nebraska 
bill, 108 ; applauds seizure of Mason 
and Slidell, 209. 

Felton, Cornelius C, his friendship 
with Sumner, 15, 28. 

Ferry, Orris S., moves that debate on 
San Domingo treaty be in open ses- 
sion, 3S5; opposes removal of Sum- 
ner from his chairmanship, 395. 

Fessenden, William P., disagrees with 
Sumner's theory of state suicide, 
219; bitterly opposes Sumner's 
amendment to national bank bill, 
268 ; prefers to persuade rather than 
oppose Johnson, 295 ; has charge of 
fourteenth amendment resolution 
in Senate, 311 ; opposes plan to give 
land to freedmeu, 333 ; votes against 
Alaska treaty, 33S; failure of Butler 
to impress in impeachment case, 
348 ; his death, 373 ; eulogized by 
Sumner, 377. 

Fillmore, Millard, becomes President, 
and appoints Webster secretary of 
state, 72 ; issues proclamation in 
Shadrach case, 88. 

Financial History, speech of Sumner 
on legal tender issue in 1862, 220; 
attempt of Sumner to exempt na- 
tional banks from state taxation, 
267, 268 ; establishment of new 
mint, 268; proposal to pay bonds 
in greenbacks, 352; proposal to tax 
bonds, 353; specie payment urged 
by Sumner, 356 ; bill of Sumner to 
refund the debt and retire green- 



backs, 376, 377 ; debate on income 
tax, 377. 

Fish, Hamilton, enters Senate, 89 ; 
friendly with Sumner, 89; votes 
against proposal to repeal Fugitive 
Slave Act, 92; secretary of state, 
his relations with Sumner, 363 ; con- 
sults Sumner regarding diplomatic 
appointments, 364 ; opposes recogni- 
tion of Cuban belligerency, 369 ; 
consults Sumner regarding Motley's 
instructions, 369; 370; suggests ces- 
sion of Canada, 370 ; consults Sum- 
ner as to feeling of Senate regarding 
Alabama claims, 373 ; signs Bab- 
cock's instructions, 379 ; urges Sum- 
ner not to oppose Grant, 385 ; on 
good relations with Sumner, 392; 
writes letter bitterly accusing Sum- 
ner of duplicity, 393; breaks off re- 
lations with Sumner, 394; says that 
Sumner delayed action on treaties, 
396. 

Fitzwilliam, Lord, entertains Sumner 
in 1S38, 21. 

Florida, prepares for secession in 1S60, 
ISO; refusal of Congress to recognize 
reconstructed government of, 309, 
310. 

Floyd, John B., aids secession from 
Buchanan's Cabinet, 183 ; resigns, 
184. 

Follett, Sir William Webb, meets 
Sumner in 1838, 21. 

Forney, J. W., says Sumner opposed 
nomination of Grant, 357; dines 
with Grant and Sumner, 382. 

Forster, William E., meets Sumner in 
1857, 159. 

France, Revolution of 1848 in, ap- 
plauded in United States, 61 ; recog- 
nizes belligerency of Confederacy, 
208 ; intervenes in Mexico to secure 
payment of debt, 220; resolutions 
condemning, defeated by Sumner in 
Senate, 238, 239 ; offers to mediate, 
241 ; menacing language of Sumner 
against, 250 ; illegal sales of arms to, 
during Franco-German war, 407, 
408. 

Freedmen, their condition after war, 
264, 266 ; creation of Bureau to pro- 
tect, 265, 266 ; oppressed by recon- 



INDEX 



443 



structed Southern States, 301, 306, 
307 ; bills to protect, introduced by 
Sumner in 1SG5, 303 ; bill to protect 
civil rights of, passed, 308, 309 ; ne- 
cessity of giving suffrage to, 312, 
313 ; attempt of Sumner to secure 
land and free education for, 332- 
334, 343 ; Sumner's efforts to se- 
cure complete equality for, by bis 
civil rights bill, 402-406, 420, 426- 
428. 
Free-Soil party, called for by vote of 
Conscience Whigs in Massachusetts, 
58; formed at Buffalo convention, 
59; its campaign in Massachusetts, 
60; continues activity in 1849, 62; 
begins to combine with Democrats 
and Whigs in different States, 63; 
denounces Webster and the com- 
promises, 73, 74 ; plans coalition in 
Massachusetts with Democrats, 75- 
77 ; its platform in 1850, 79 ; urges 
Sumner for senator, 80, 81 ; refuses 
to drop Sumner in order to please 
Democrats, 83 ; renews coalition in 

1851, 85 ; determines to act alone, in 

1852, and nominates Hale and Ju- 
lian, 96 ; casts small vote, 97 ; loses 
ground in Massachusetts, 99, 100 ; 
members of, publish " Appeal of In- 
dependent Democrats," 106; joins 
Republican party, 122. 

Frelinghuysen, Frederick T., opposes 
proposal to give land to freedmen, 
333 ; defends War Department 
against Sumner, 408 ; promises Sum- 
ner not to prevent action on the 
civil rights bill, 427. 

Fremont, John C, Republican candi- 
date in 1856, 157 ; his order emanci- 
pating slaves annulled, 198. 

French Spoliation Claims, Sumner's 
report on, 267. 

Fugitive Slave Law, passed in 1850, 
its terms, 71 ; stirs indignation in 
North, 74, 75 ; denunciation of, by 
Sumner, 77-S0; agitation against, in 
1851, 87, 88; Shadrach rescue under, 
88 ; attacked by Sumner in Senate, 
92, 94, 95; agitation against, after 
Burns case, 110, 118; blocked by 
personal liberty acts, 121, 122; at- 
tempt to repeal defeated, 126, 127 j 



enforced during war, 198 ; repealed 
in 1864, 261. 

Garfield, James A., votes for bill au- 
thorizing President to protect citi- 
zens by reprisals on foreigners, 355. 

Garrison, William Lloyd, publishes 
" Liberator," 37 ; mobbed in Boston, 
39 ; introduces resolutions condemn- 
ing Sumner for his silence in the 
Senate, 91 ; attacks Sumner bitterly 
in 1872, 415. 

Georgia, movement for disunion in, 
180. 

Germany, visit of Sumner to, in 1839- 
1840, 23, 24. 

Giddings, Joshua R., his views sympa- 
thized with by Sumner, 33 ; votes 
against Winthrop for speaker, 55; 
urges Sumner to accept Free-Soil 
nomination for Senate, 81 ; re- 
nounces Fugitive Slave Law, 88 ; 
signs " Appeal of Independent 
Democrats," 106; reward offered 
for his head in Virginia, 174. 

Gladstone, William Ewart, meets 
Sumner, 159, 164; proclaims success 
of South, 242; bitter comment of 
Sumner on, 245. 

Gott, Daniel, moves to forbid slavery 
in District of Columbia, 67. 

Grant, Ulysses S., proposal to nomi- 
nate in 1864, 271 ; sends optimistic 
report of state of South in 1865, 304, 
305 ; not anxious that England 
should pay Alabama claims, 341 ; 
attempt of Johnson to appoint sec- 
retary of war, 347 ; candidate for 
presidency in 1868, 356, 357 ; dis- 
trusts politicians and selects Cabinet 
independently, 359 ; incompatible 
with Sumner, 359 ; not trusted by 
Sumner from outset, 359, 360 ; 
wishes Johnson treaties left to be 
considered by new administration, 
360 ; his Cabinet, 363 ; wishes law 
changed so as to permit Stewart to 
be secretary of treasury, 363, 364 ; 
favors recognition of Cuban belli- 
gerency, 369 : wishes annexation of 
San Domingo, 379 ; sends Babcock 
to investigate, 379 ; authorizes Bab- 
cock to make treaties of annex- 



444 



INDEX 



ation, 3S0 ; his popularity enables 
him to escape censure, 381 ; asks 
Sumner to support treaties, 382 ; 
his ignorance of the Senate, 382 ; 
afterwards says Sumner promised 
support, 3S2 ; considers opposition 
as insubordination and disloyalty, 
383, 3S4 ; sends messages urging rati- 
fication, and uses personal influ- 
ence, 385; not attacked in Sumner's 
speech against annexation, 385,386; 
removes Motley to punish Sumner, 
386 ; renews argument for annexa- 
tion of San Domingo, 387 ; attacked 
by Sumner in speech on San Do- 
mingo, 389 ; becomes bitterly hos- 
tile to Sumner, 390 ; sends papers 
concerning Motley's removal to Sen- 
ate, 392 ; bitterly attacked by Sum- 
ner in Senate, 398 ; sends another 
San Domingo message, 399 ; refuses 
to be reconciled to Sumner, 401 ; 
comes under Butler's influence, 401 ; 
argument against his reelection by 
Sumner, 402 ; uses patronage to 
benefit friends, 410 ; his popularity 
makes renomination inevitable, 410 ; 

[- movement against, in Republican 
party, 410 ; determination of Sum- 
ner to oppose, 412 ; arraigned by 
Sumner as danger to the country, 
413-415 ; extravagance of Sumner's 
attack on, 415, 416. 

Greeley, Horace, favors permitting 
secession in 1S60, 184 ; urges re- 
election of Sumner, 234 ; opposes 
renomination of Lincoln, 271 ; de- 
mands negro suffrage in 1865, 295 ; 
nominated for President in 1872, 
411 ; intention of supporting him 
announced by Sumner, 416, 418 ; his 
death, 419. 

Greenleaf , Simon, teaches in Harvard 
Law School, 7 ; introduces Sumner 
to Kent, 11 ; assisted by Sumner, 
14 ; advises Sumner to return from 
England, 24. 

Grimes, James W., favors bill to au- 
thorize privateering, 239 ; opposes 
Freedman's Bureau bill, 266 ; his 
attitude in impeachment trial, 348. 

Groesbeck, William S., his argument 
in Johnson impeachment, 349. 



Grote, George, met by Sumner in 

1883, 21. 
Grote, Mrs. Harriet Lewin, met by 

Sumner in 1838, 21. 

Hale, John P., elected to Senate by a 
coalition, 63 ; strong in debate but 
not aggressive, 86 ; denounces Fu- 
gitive Slave Act, 88 ; nominated for 
presidency, 97 ; fails of reelection 
to Senate, 101 ; his speech on Trent 
affair, 214. 

Hallam, Henry, met by Sumner in 
1838, 21. 

Halleck, Henry W., orders that fugi- 
tive slaves be not received, 204. 

Hamlin, Hannibal, his renomination in 
1S64 not prevented by Sumner, 272, 
273 ; favors removal of Sumner from 
his chairmanship, 395. 

Hammond, James H., predicts a 
bloody fight in Congress, 172 ; pre- 
dicts success to South from cotton 
power, 180. 

Harcourt, William Vernon, denounces 
and sneers at Lincoln, Seward, and 
Sumner in Trent affair, 216. 

Harlan, James, favors bill to retali- 
ate on Confederate prisoners, 280; 
favors annexation of San Domingo, 
385. 

Harrison, William Henry, voted for 
by Sumner in 1840, 28 ; favors in- 
eligibility of President for reelec- 
tion, 401. 

Harvard College, gives Job Sumner 
honorary degree, 2 ; studies of C. 
P. Sumner at, 3 ; studies of Sumner 
at, 5-10 ; cost of, compared by Sum- 
ner to a warship, 36. 

Harvard Law School, studies of Sum- 
ner at, 7 ; services of Sumner as in- 
structor in, 14 ; position in, declined 
by Sumner, 24. 

Hatherton, Lord, visited by Sumner 
in 1859, 164. 

Hawthorne, Nathaniel, meets Sumner 
in Rome, 163. 

Hayti, recognition of, secured by Sum- 
ner, 221, 222; San Domingo pro- 
tected against by Grant's order, 
380, 381. 

Hayward, Abraham, meets Sumner in 



INDEX 



445 



1838, 21 ; on Sumner's social suc- 
cess, 22. 

Hendricks, Thomas A., taunts Repub- 
licans with subservience to Sum- 
ner, 262. 

Hill, Joshua, on civil rights bill, 403. 

Hillard, George S., law partner of 
Sumner, 13 ; member of " Five of 
Clubs," 15 ; elected to legislature, 
15 ; delivers Phi Beta Kappa ora- 
tion, 29. 

Hoar, E. Rockwood, leader of Con- 
science Whigs, 44 ; describes Sum- 
ner's appearance, 231 ; attorney- 
general under Grant, 3G3 ; opposes 
recognition of Cuban belligerency, 
369 ; with Sumner the day before 
his death, 430 ; his eulogy of Sum- 
ner, 430. 

Hoar, Samuel, expelled from South 
Carolina, 40 ; Free-Soiler in 1850, 
74 ; opposes coalition with Demo- 
crats, 76. 

Holland, Lord, entertains Sumner in 
1838, 21. 

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, on Sumner's 
lack of humor, 14. 

Hook, Theodore, met by Sumner in 
1838, 21. 

Hooper, Mrs., her marriage to Sum- 
ner, 323, 324. 

House of Representatives, petition 
contest in, 40 ; passes Mexican war 
bill, 45 ; division of Conscience and 
Cotton Whigs in, 55 ; struggle in 
over Wilmot Proviso, 56 ; passes 
bill to organize Territories without 
slavery, 67 ; speakership struggle 
in, 69 ; agitation in, against Fugitive 
Slave Law, 88 ; passes Kansas-Ne- 
braska bill, 107 ; appoints commit- 
tee to investigate Brooks assault, 
149 ; censures Brooks and Keitt 
but declines to expel them, 150 ; 
adopts report declaring territorial 
government of Kansas fraudulent, 
157 ; defeats bill to admit Kansas 
under Lecompton constitution, 168; 
adopts English bill as compromise, 
169 ; passes bill to admit Kansas 
under free constitution, 171 ; ap- 
points special committee on state 
of Union, 186 ; discusses elaborate 



compromise reports, 188 ; passes 
Crittenden resolution on object of 
war, 200 ; resolves against return- 
ing of slaves by soldiers, 201, 205 ; 
thanks Wilkes in Trent affair, 209; 
rejects bill to permit negroes to 
carry mails, 224 ; passes bill to aid 
emancipation in Missouri, 237; re- 
jects proposal to allow negro suf- 
frage in Montana, 263 ; passes act 
amending neutrality laws, 319 ; im- 
peaches Johnson, 347 ; passes bill 
to authorize reprisals on foreigners 
for seizures of American citizens, 
353, 354. 

Houston, Samuel, on needlessness of 
Nebraska bill, 105. 

Howard, Jacob M., favors resolutions 
to retaliate on Southern prisoners, 
280. 

Howe, Dr. S. G., in Boston in 1840, 
28; praises Sumner's unselfishness, 
29 ; candidate of Conscience Whigs 
against Winthrop, 52. 

Howe, Timothy O., favors bill to re- 
taliate on Confederate prisoners, 
289 ; reports committees excluding 
Sumner from his chairmanship, 395 ; 
argues that he has offended Presi- 
dent and blocks annexation, 395. 

Humboldt, Alexander von, visited by 
Sumner, 24. 

Hume, Joseph, entertains Sumner in 
1838, 21. 

Hunt, Leigh, met by Sumner in 1838, 
21. 

Hunter, R. M. T., moves payment of 
unusual expenses in executing 
United States laws, 92. 

Hyatt, Thaddeus, refuses to testify 
before congressional committee on 
John Brown, 171. 

Illinois, campaign of 1858 in, 169. 

Impeachment, of Johnson, suggested 
in 1867, 332 ; carried out in 1869, 
347 ; conduct of, 347-351 ; ques- 
tions at issue in, 348, 350 ; position 
of chief justice in, 350. 

Ingham, Robert, meets Sumner in 
1838, 21. 

Inglis, Sir Robert, entertains Sumner 
in 1838, 21, 24. 



446 



INDEX 



Italy, visit of Sumner to, in 1839, 23. 
Iverson, Alfred, says war in 1860 is 
impossible, 181. 

Jackson, Andrew, loathing of Kent 
for, 11 ; presentation of Sumner to, 
11; says slavery question is at bot- 
tom of nullification, 37, 187 ; quoted 
by Sumner in 1861, 187 ; favors in- 
eligibility of President for reelec- 
tion, 401. 

Jacob, Relief, marries C. P. Sumner, 
4 ; mother of Charles Sumner, 4, 5. 

Jameson, Mrs. Anna, meets Sumner 
in 1838, 21. 

Jeffrey, Francis Lord, met by Sumner 
in 1838, 21. 

Johnson, Andrew, introduces Critten- 
den resolution on object of war into 
the Senate, 200; governor of Ten 
nessee, 227 ; nominated for vice- 
president in place of Hamlin, 272 ; 
disliked by Lincoln, 289 ; assures 
Sumner of entire agreement with 
his views, 291; leads public to ex- 
pect severity toward South, 293 ; 
issues amnesty proclamation, 293 ; 
reasons for his apparent change of 
purpose, 293 ; his policy criticised, 
294 ; opposition to, divided in 1865, 
294-296 ; Southern pressure on, de- 
scribed by Sumner, 296 ; appealed 
to in vain by Stevens, 299 ; his plan 
of reconstruction, 300 ; visited by 
Sumner, 302 ; definite rupture of 
Sumner with, 303 ; sends Grant's 
and Schurz's reports on condition of 
South to Congress, 304 ; his mes- 
sage denounced by Sumner as 
" whitewashing," 305 ; discredited 
by Schurz's report, 307 ; vetoes 
Freedman's Bureau bill, 308 ; vetoes 
civil rights bill, 309 ; makes violent 
speeches against opponents in Con- 
gress, 314 ; vetoes bill to admit Col- 
orado, 315 ; does not sign bill to 
admit Nebraska, 316 ; signs resolu- 
tion admitting Tennessee, 316 ; at- 
tacks Congress in a series of inde- 
cent speeches, 321, 322 ; uses pat- 
ronage to build up support, 322, 
329 ; bitter attack of Sumner upon, 
323 ; vetoes bill for negro suffrage 



in district, 325; necessity of re- 
straining by Tenure of Office bill 
stated by Sumner, 330, 331 ; fear of 
Congress to leave him without su- 
pervision, 337 ; refuses to sign bill 
to prevent exclusion of negroes 
from office in district, 344 ; removes 
Stanton, 346 ; violates Tenure of 
Office Act, 347 ; tries to expel Stan- 
ton by force through Grant and 
Thomas, 347 ; impeached by the 
House, 347 ; trial of, 348-351 ; ap- 
points Reverdy Johnson minister to 
England, 357. 

Johnson, Reverdy, insists, in 1864, that 
negroes are not citizens, 263 ; says 
that Sumner's opinions disqualify 
him to sit on impeachment of John- 
son, 331 ; appointed minister to 
England, 357; negotiates treaties 
with Great Britain, 360 ; his effu- 
siveness toward England arouses 
prejudices against treaties, 364. 

Jones, James C, threatens disunion 
if Fugitive Slave Act be not en- 
forced, 111. 

Josselyn, Mary, ancestor of Sumner, 1. 

Julian, George W., nominated for 
vice-president, 96. 

Kansas, organization of, proposed, 
104, 105 ; not really inhabited at 
all, 105 ; left to settle slavery ques- 
tion, 131 ; purpose of North to set- 
tle with Free-Soilers, 132 ; invaded 
by Missourians, 132, 133 ; controlled 
by sham elections, 133 ; adopts pro- 
slavery code, 133 ; Northern set- 
tlers of, form Topeka constitution, 
133, 134; narrow escape from civil 
war in, 134 ; state government 
formed in, 135 ; attitude of Presi- 
dent Pierce toward, 135, 136 ; be- 
ginning of violence in, 137 ; guerrilla 
warfare in, 156 ; election of Lecomp- 
ton convention in, 165, 166 ; carried 
by free-state men, 160 ; attempt to 
force Lecompton constitution on, 
167, 168 ; rejects Lecompton con- 
stitution in 1858, 168 ; struggle 
over, in Congress, 169 ; rejects Le- 
compton constitution again under 
provisions of English bill, 169 j abol- 



INDEX 



447 



ishes slavery and draws up a new 
constitution, 170. 

Kansas-Nebraska bill, early stages in 
formation of, 10'2-104 ; its final form 
as reported by Douglas, 104. 

Keitt, L. M., ready to aid Brooks 
in beating Sumner, 147 ; censured 
by House, 149, 150 ; resigns and is 
reelected, 150. 

Kendall, Amos, his attitude on aboli- 
tion matter in the mails, 39. 

Kent, James, visited by Sumner, 11 ; 
comments of Sumner on, 11 ; sup- 
ports English claim to right of 
search, 30. 

Kentucky, emancipation convention 
in, 68. 

Kenyon, John, meets Sumner in 1838, 
21. 

Know-Nothing party, origin of, 123 ; 
carries Massachusetts, 123 ; serves 
useful purpose in breaking up Whig 
party, 124 ; divides on slavery ques- 
tion in 1855, 128. 

Kossuth, Louis, tribute of Sumner to, 
90. 

Ku-Klux, measures against, 399, 405. 

Landor, Walter S. , met by Sumner in 
1S3S, 21. 

Langdale, Baron Henry B., entertains 
Sumner, 20. 

Lansdowne, Lord, entertains Sumner 
in 183S, 21. 

Lawrence, William Beach, visits Sum- 
ner in Washington, 34G. 

Leicester, Lord, entertains Sumner in 
1838, 21. 

Lewis, George Cornewall, entertains 
Sumner in 1838, 21. 

Liberal Republicans, oppose Grant's 
renomination, 410 ; unable to secure 
a leader, 411 ; make a blunder in 
naming Horace Greeley, 411 ; con- 
nection of Sumner with, 411-416, 
418. 

"Liberator," fails to arouse Sumner, 
16. 

Liberia, recognition of, 222. 

Lieber, Francis, acquaintance of Sum- 
ner with, 11 ; informs Sumner of 
plan to request Lincoln to withdraw 
in 1864, 271. 



Lincoln, Abraham, his debates with 
Douglas, 169 ; elected President, 
176, 177 ; his election the signal for 
disunion, 179 ; his attitude on com- 
promises, 193 ; inaugurated, 194 ; 
regrets rejecting Sumner's advice in 
a diplomatic appointment, 195 ; 
sends message on San Juan arbitra- 
tion, 195 ; annuls Fremont's eman- 
cipation order, 198 ; wisdom of his 
policy, 198 ; agrees with Sumner as 
to necessity of abolishing slavery, 
199 ; urged by Sumner to act in 
1861, 199, 200 ; teUs Sumner he is 
not yet ready to act, 203 ; urges 
colonization, 204 ; consults with 
Sumner about offering federal aid 
to state emancipation, 205 ; urged 
by Sumner not to delay signing bill 
for abolition in the district, 207 ; 
in signing, points out certain flaws 
in bill, 207 ; doubtful about Trent 
affair, 209 ; urged by Sumner to 
surrender Mason and Slidell, 210, 
211 ; wishes to confer personally 
with Lyons, 212 ; his desire for 
peace, 213 ; sends papers on Trent 
affair to Senate, 214 ; sneered at 
by English, 216 ; submits Corwin's 
Mexican project to Senate, 220 ; 
suggests recognition of Hayti and 
Liberia, 221 ; announces ratification 
of slave trade treaty, 223 ; appoints 
military governors, 227 ; continues 
to be urged by Sumner, 229 ; issues 
emancipation proclamation, 230 ; 
Sumner's judgment on, 230 ; re- 
fuses to accept resignations of Sew- 
ard and Chase, 236 ; recommends 
federal aid to emancipation in Mis- 
souri, 237 ; urged by Seward not to 
issue letters of marque, 243 ; adopts 
idea of forcing neutrality through 
English courts, 245 ; shown Cob- 
den's and Bright's letters, 247 ; his 
theory of reconstruction, 255, 256 ; 
Republican opposition to his renom- 
ination, 271 ; efforts to secure his 
withdrawal, 271 ; Sumner's opinion 
of, in 1864, 272, 273, 274 ; hesitates 
to appoint Chase chief justice, 278 ; 
urges recognition of Louisiana under 
Banks's governorship, 282 ; issues 



448 



INDEX 



reconstruction proclamation, 2 S3 ; 
vetoes congressional reconstruction 
bill, 284 ; stirs up opposition in 
Congress, 2S5 ; his policy criticised, 
287 ; continues on good terms with 
Sumner, 288 ; visits army with 
Sumner, 289 ; his dislike for John- 
son, 289 ; his assassination, 290 ; 
his gentleness toward rebels de- 
scribed by Sumner, 291 ; eulogized 
by Sumner, 292 ; proposal to con- 
tract for a statue of, 319 ; like Sum- 
ner in his faith in equal rights, 
432. 

Lincoln, Mrs. Mary Todd, thanks 
Sumner for his kindness after Lin- 
coln's assassination, 290 ; a pension 
secured for by Sumner, 378. 

Logan, John A., opposes removal of 
Sumner from his chairmanship, 
395. 

Longfellow, Henry W., forms friend- 
ship with Sumner, 15, 28, 29 ; on 
Sumner's probable career in poli- 
tics, 00, 61 ; on Sumner's lack of 
elation on being elected to Senate, 
84 ; praises Sumner's Kansas speech, 
145; suggests testimonial to Sum- 
ner in 1856, 155. 

Louisiana, beginnings of secession in, 
180 ; reconstructed under Lincoln's 
rule by Banks, 282-284. 

Lovejoy, Elijah P., killed in 1838, 39. 

Lowell, James Russell, Free-Soil 
leader in 1850, 74. 

Lundy, Benjamin, 37. 

Lushington, Dr. Stephen, meets Sum- 
ner in 1838, 21 ; and again in 1857, 
159; entertains him in 1859, 164. 

Lyndhurst, Lord, heard by Sumner 
in Parliament, 22. 

Lyons, Lord, his instructions in Trent 
affair, 208. 

Macaulay, Thomas B., met by Sumner 
in 1838, 21. 

McDougall, James A., introduces reso- 
lutions condemning French inter- 
vention in Mexico, 238, 239. 

Mann, Horace, aided by Sumner, 
29; Free-Soil leader in 1850, 74; 
denounces Fugitive Slave Law, 



Martineau, Harriet, met by Sumner 
in 1838, 21, 26. 

Marvin, William, refused admission as 
senator from Florida, 310. 

Mason, James M., introduces Fugitive 
Slave Law, 69; sits near Sumner, 89; 
accuses Sumner of insulting Senate, 
112; haughty reply of Sumner to, 
115, 116; denounces Sumner after 
his Kansas speech, 143; moves that 
Senate elect committee of inquiry 
after Brooks assault, 148; praises 
Brooks, 150; moves commitment of 
Hyatt, 171; calls up Crittenden 
compromise for a final vote, 188 ; 
captured by Wilkes in 1861, 208 ; 
his surrender demanded by Eng- 
land, 209. 

Mason, Jeremiah, acquainted with 
Sumner, 28. 

Massachusetts, sends Hoar to test 
South Carolina seaman laws, 40 ; 
opposes annexation of Texas, 43; 
controversy in, between Conscience 
and Cotton Whigs, 46-55 ; formation 
of Free-Soil party in, 58-60 ; strug- 
gle of Free-Soilers in against com- 
promise, 73, 74 ; election of 1850 in, 
75-80 ; carried by Free-Soil and 
Democratic coalition, 80; senatorial 
election in, 80-84; campaign of 1851 
in, 85; carried by Whigs in 1852, 97, 
98; constitutional convention of 1853 
in, 99, 100; carried by Whigs in 
1853, 100 ; rejects new constitution, 
100 ; urged by Sumner to counter- 
act Fugitive Slave Law, 119 ; passes 
personal liberty acts, 121 ; carried 
by Know-Nothings in 1854, 123 ; cam- 
paign of 1855 in, 128 130 ; denounces 
Brooks's assault on Sumner, 152 ; 
carried by Republicans in 1856, re- 
elects Sumner to Senate, 157 ; Re- 
publican campaign of 1860 in, 176; 
urged by Sumner not to repeal per- 
sonal liberty acts, 191 ; petition from, 
in favor of Crittenden resolutions, 
193 ; campaign of 1862, in for Sum- 
ner's reelection, 233-235 ; reelects 
Sumner to Senate in 1868, 356 ; Re- 
publican nomination in, withheld 
from Butler by Sumner's influence, 
400 ; censures Sumner for opposing 






INDEX 



449 



registration of victories over South, 
421, 422 ; finally rescinds the cen- 
sure, 422, 429. 

Mayflower, Sumner's comparison of, 
with the Jamestown slave-ship, 275. 

Metternich, Prince, receives Sumner 
in 1839, 24. 

Mexico, danger of war with in 1845, 
34 ; war with, brought on, by Polk 
and Taylor, 45 ; defeated in 1847, 
53 ; makes peace, 56 ; intervention 
of France, England, and Spain in, 
220 ; attempt of Corwin to get 
United States to lend it enough 
to pay creditors, 220 ; intervention 
of France in, condemned in Senate, 
239. 

Milnes, Monckton, meets Sumner in 
1838, 21, 24. 

Mississippi, secession party in, during 
1S50, 88 ; prepares for secession in 
1S60, 180 ; completion of recon- 
struction in, 375. 

Missouri, forms associations to keep 
free-state emigrants out of Kansas, 
132 ; ruffians from, control territorial 
elections, 132, 133 ; its slave code 
adopted by Kansas, 133 ; invasions 
from, into Kansas continue, 137 ; 
bill to aid emancipation in, 237. 

Missouri Compromise, temporarily 
removes slavery from politics, 3G ; 
its repeal proposed in 1854, 103, 104. 

Mittermaier, Karl Joseph, visited by 
Sumner, 24. 

Montagu, Basil, meets Sumner in 
1838, 21. 

Montana, organized without negro 
suffrage, 263. 

Morpeth, Lord, becomes friend of 
Sumner, 21. 

Morrill, Justin H., replies to Grant's 
San Domingo message, 399. 

Morrill, Lot M., in debate on bill to 
organize Montana, 263 ; ignorant of 
any attempt by Sumner to secure 
nomination of Johnson, 273 ; votes 
against Alaska treaty, 338 ; opposes 
removal of Sumner from his chair- 
manship, 395. 

Morton, Oliver P., unwilling to oppose 
Johnson in 1SG5, 295 ; favors power 
of Congress to impose conditions on 



States admitted to Union, 374 ; fa- 
vors annexation of San Domingo, 
385 ; offers resolution for a commis- 
sion to investigate San Domingo, 388 ; 
defends War Department against 
Sumner, 408. 

Motley, John Lothrop, meets Sumner 
in Rome, 163; entertains him in 
England, 164 ; visits Sumner in 
Washington, 345 ; appointed minis- 
ter to England, 3G4 ; his instructions, 
369, 370, 371 ; removed from office 
to punish Sumner, 386. 

Murat, Madame, met by Sumner in 
Paris, 19. 

Napoleon III., offers to mediate in 
1862, 241 ; denounced by Sumner 
for his Mexican policy, 250, 251. 

Naturalization, privilege of, secured to 
negroes by Sumner, 375, 376. 

Nebraska, uninhabited by white men 
in 1854, 105 ; failure of attempt to 
admit as a State in 1866, 316 ; ad- 
mitted as a State with negro suf- 
frage, 326, 327. 

Negro suffrage, attempt of Sumner to 
secure in Montana, 263 ; defeated in 
District of Columbia, 264 ; attempt 
of Sumner to secure in reconstruc- 
tion act of 1864, 284 ; and again in 
1865, 286 ; its necessity to secure 
rights of freedmen, 288, 289; advo- 
cated by Sumner in speeches and 
otherwise in 1865, 292, 294-299; 
bills to secure introduced by Sumner 
in 1S65, 303 ; proposed amendment 
to secure by indirection, opposed by 
Sumner, 310-314 ; attempt of Sum- 
ner to secure in Colorado, 315; and 
in Nebraska and Tennessee, 316 ; 
altered popular opinion toward, 324, 
325; secured in District, 325; in 
Nebraska, and Colorado, 326, 327 ; 
in the Territories, 327; secured in 
reconstruction act, 328 ; attempt 
of Sumner to secure in North, 344. 

New Mexico, petitions against allow- 
ing slavery, 66 ; peonage abolished 
in, 329. 

North, indifferent to slavery in 1831, 
38 ; persecution of abolitionists in, 
39, 40; begins to be forced into op. 



450 



INDEX 



posing slavery, 41; opposes exten- 
sion of slavery into Territories, 66, 
67; attacked by Calhoun, 67; ap- 
plauds Sumner's reply to Butler, 
116; passes personal liberty laws, 
121, 122; its union against South 
predicted by Sumner, 128; sends 
emigrants to Kansas, 132 ; indig- 
nant at Brooks's assault on Sum- 
ner, 152, 153 ; expected by South 
to fall into anarchy, 181 ; blamed 
by Buchanan for secession, 183 ; 
appalled at secession movement, 
calls for compromise, 184 ; fear of 
disunionists of uniting by too vigor- 
ous action, 185 ; compromise dis- 
cussion in, 189-194 ; expects Eng- 
lish sympathy, 208 ; angry at English 
attitude, 208 ; enthusiastic over 
Trent capture, 209 ; favors reten- 
tion of envoys, 210 ; applauds Sum- 
ner's speech against England, 248- 
253 ; impressed by Sumner's speech 
on condition of South, 307. 

"North American Review," contribu- 
tions of Sumner to, 14. 

North Carolinia, process of recon- 
struction in, 293. 

Northcote, Sir Stafford, on Sumner's 
Claims speech, 368. 

Norton, Mrs. Caroline E. S., meets 
Sumner in 1838, 21. 

Nye, James W., favors removal of 
Sumner from his chairmanship, 
395. 

O'Connell, Daniel, heard by Sumner 

in 1838, 22. 
Otis, James, quoted by Sumner in 

1866, 312. 

Palfrey, John G., leader of Conscience 
Whigs, 43 ; at Whig convention, 
offers resolutions against support- 
ing any pro-slavery candidate, 54 ; 
votes against Winthrop for speaker, 
55 ; tries in vain to introduce bill to 
abolish all laws regarding slavery, 
67 ; leader of Free-Soilers in cam- 
paign of 1850, 74 ; opposes Free-Soil 
and Democratic coalition, 76. 

Palmerston, Lord, meets Sumner in 
1857, 159. 



Pardessus, Jean Marie, met by Sumner 
in Paris, 20. 

Paris, visit of Sumner to, in 1838, 18- 
20 ; and in 1839, 23 ; third visit of 
Sumner to, in 1857, 158 ; fourth 
visit in 1858, 161, 163 ; last visit of 
Sumner to, 418. 

Parke, Baron James, entertains Sum- 
ner, 20. 

Parker, Theodore, opposes compro- 
mise of 1850, 74. 

Parkes, Joseph, met by Sumner in 
1838, 21. 

Patterson, James W., opposes annex- 
ation of San Domingo, 385 ; pro- 
posal to drop from committee on 
foreign relations, 388 ; acts as inter- 
mediary between Fish and Sumner, 
394. 

Peace Conference of 1861, 182, 192, 
194. 

Peel, Sir Robert, heard by Sumner in 
Parliament, 22. 

Personal Liberty Acts, their consti- 
tutionality, 121, 122 ; debated in 
Senate, 126. 

Pettit, John, abuses Sumner in 1855, 
112. 

Phillips, Stephen C, suggested aB 
senatorial candidate in 1851 instead 
of Sumner, 83. 

Phillips, Wendell, schoolmate of Sum- 
ner, 5 ; gains reputation before 
Sumner, 15 ; delivers speech in 
Faneuil Hall, 25; criticises Sumner's 
slowness to attack slavery in Senate, 
91 ; willing to allow secession in 
1S60, 184 ; urges reelection of Sum- 
ner, 234 ; denounced by Johnson, 
314 ; on Sumner's breaking health, 
392 ; disapproves of Sumner's attack 
on Grant, 415. 

Pickering, John, eulogized by Sumner, 
50. 

Pierce, Franklin, his first presidential 
message, 102 ; favors Kansas-Ne- 
braska bill, 104 ; declines to inter- 
fere in Kansas, 133 ; sends special 
message on Kansas, recognizing 
Border Ruffian government, 135 ; 
sends documents, 136 ; his Kansas 
message compared with Johnson's 
of 1865, 305. 



i 



INDEX 



451 



Pierce, Henry L., visits Sumner 
shortly before his death, 430. 

Polk, James K., sends message an- 
nouncing Mexican war, 45 ; asks 
for appropriation to buy territory, 
56 ; his message urging organiza- 
tion of new Territories with Mis- 
souri Compromise line, 65, 66. 

Pollock, Sir Frederick, meets Sumner 
in 1838, 21. 

Pool, John, favors removal of Sumner 
from his chairmanship, 395. 

Poore, Ben : Perley, dines with Grant 
and Sumner, 382 ; visits Sumner 
shortly before his death, 430. 

Prescott, William, in Boston in 1840, 

28 ; writes " Conquest of Mexico," 

29 ; favors English contention for 
right of search, 30 ; supports Com- 
promise Whigs in 1850, 74. 

Privateering, bill to permit, passed by 
Congress, 239-241 ; not employed 
by Lincoln's administration, 241. 

Quincy, Josiah, Free-Soil leader in 
1850, 74 ; suggests testimonial for 
Sumner in 1856, 155. 

Raasloff, General, urges ratification 
of St. Thomas treaty, 361. 

Rand, Benjamin, studies of Sumner in 
his office, 10. 

Ranke, Leopold von, visited by Sum- 
ner, 24. 

Raumer, Frederick L. G. von, visited 
by Sumner, 24. 

Rawlins, General J., tries to secure 
recognition of Cuban belligerency, 
369. 

Ream, Vinnie, attempt of Sumner to 
prevent contract with, for a statue 
of Lincoln, 319. 

Reconstruction, plan of, foreshad- 
owed in Sumner's theory of state 
suicide, 217-219 ; failure of bill to 
establish temporary governments, 
227 ; begun by Lincoln's appoint- 
ments of military governors, 227, 
228 ; Lincoln's theory of, 255 ; 
Sumner's desire to delay, 255, 256 ; 
Sumner's article upon, in 1863, 256- 
258 ; Sumner's resolutions upon, in 
1864, 259 ; its process in Arkansas, 



269 ; carried through in Louisiana, 
283 ; passage of reconstruction act 
by Congress in 1864, 284 ; act vetoed 
by Lincoln, 285 ; further attempt 
to act upon in Congress in 18G5, 
285, 286 ; Johnson's policy regard- 
ing, 293; amnesty proclamation, 293; 
process of reconstruction in North 
Carolina, 293 ; carrying out of John- 
son's plan, 300, 301 ; Freedman's 
Bureau and Civil Rights acts, 30S, 
309 ; passage of fourteenth amend- 
ment, 316, 317 ; passage of recon- 
struction act, 327-329 ; proposal of 
Sumner to amend so as to include 
compulsory education, 334 ; discus- 
sion of wisdom of congressional 
policy, 335-337 ; passage of act ad- 
mitting States on condition of ratify- 
ing fourteenth amendment, 351 ; ad- 
mission of Virginia and Mississippi, 
374, 375 ; amnesty act, 406. 

Reeder, Andrew H., governor of Kan- 
sas, 132 ; lacks courage to annul 
elections in 1855, 133. 

Republican party, causes for, 117 ; its 
formation in North, 117 ; formed in 
Massachusetts, 118, 122 ; nominates 
Fremont in 1856, 157 ; in election 
of 1858, 170; doubts wisdom of 
Sumner's speech on slavery in 1859, 
175 ; succeeds in election of 18G0, 
176 ; disregards threats of secession 
178, 179 ; panic struck in 1861, 184 ; 
variety of policies suggested by, 
185 ; depressed in 18G2, 233 ; loses 
ground in elections, 234 ; leaders of, 
ask dismissal of Seward, 230 ; oppo- 
sition in, to Lincoln's renomination, 
271, 272, 274 ; substitutes Johnson 
for Hamlin, 272, 273 ; leaders of, 
doubtful how to act regarding 
Johnson, 295 ; becomes settled on 
policy of carrying through recon- 
struction, 309 ; successful in elec- 
tion of 1866, 324 ; votes to do no- 
thing in Congress, in 1S67, except 
push reconstruction, 342, 343 ; re- 
fusal of Sumner to be bound by 
caucus rule of, 343 ; national con- 
vention pledges to pay debt of gov- 
ernment, 352 ; nominates Grant in 
1868, 357 ; popularity of Grant 



452 



INDEX 



among masses of, 410 ; movement 
in, against Grant's renomination, 
410 ; successful in election of 1S72, 
411 ; reluctance of Sumner to leave, 
411-412 ; denounces Sumner, 415, 
416 ; depraved character of, under 
Grant's second term, 423, 424 ; ex- 
cludes Sumner from caucus, 424, 
426. 
Revels, Hiram R., a negro admitted 

as senator from Mississippi, 375. 
Robeson, George W., authorizes Bab- 
cock to use navy to protect Baez 
government in San Domingo, 3S0, 
381. 
Rock, J. S., a negro admitted to bar 

of Supreme Court, 278. 
Rockwell, Julius, presents in Senate 
petition for repeal of Fugitive Slave 
Act, 110; refuses to answer Butler's 
question, 111 ; Republican candi- 
date for governor in Massachusetts, 
129. 
Roebuck, John Arthur, entertains 

Sumner in 1838, 21. 
Rogers, Samuel, met by Sumner in 

1838, 21, 24. 
Rolfe, Robert M. [Baron Chan- 
worth], meets Sumner in 1838, 21. 
Russell, Lord John, heard by Sumner 
in 1838, 22 ; meets Sumner in 1857, 
159 ; sends dispatch demanding re- 
lease of Mason and Slidell, within 
seven days, 209 ; rejects Seward's 
argument on Trent affair, 214 ; his 
irritating tone, 242 ; his controversy 
with Adams over Laird rams, 242, 
243 ; apparently expects war, 253. 
Russia, offers mediation, 241 ; friend- 
ly relations with, 247 ; cedes Alaska, 
338. 

St. Thomas, treaty for acquisition of, 
rejected by the Senate, 361. 

San Domingo, rivalry of Baez and 
Cabral over, 379 ; treaty for annex- 
ation of, made by Baez with Bab- 
cock under Grant's instructions, 
379, 380 ; intervention of American 
navy in, 380, 381 ; ratification of 
treaty with, urged by Grant, 382, 
383, 3S7 ; treaty of annexation re- 
jected, 386 ; appointment of com- 



mission to investigate, 391 ; further 
debate upon behavior of Grant 
toward, 397-399 ; plan to annex, 
abandoned, 399. 

Savigny, Frederick Karl, visited by 
Sumner, 24. 

Schurz, Carl, sends report describing 
bad condition of South in 1S65, 305, 
307 ; member of committee on for- 
eign relations, 374 ; opposes annexa- 
tion of San Domingo, 385 ; opposes 
removal of Sumner from his chair- 
manship, 395 ; defends Sumner in 
debate, 399 ; attacked for support- 
ing Sumner in demanding investiga- 
tion of government sales of arms, 
408 ; invited to testify before com- 
mittee of investigation, 409; op- 
poses reelection of Grant, 410 ; his 
eulogy of Sumner, 420 ; with Sum- 
ner on the day of his death, 430. 

Scott, Winfield, approves Sumner's 
motion relative to names of victories 
on Union flags, 228. 

Secession, threatened seriously in 
1850, 70 ; again threatened in 1851, 
88 ; threats of, in 1S60, despised by 
North, 178, 179 ; carried out by 
South in 1860-61, 179-182. 

Segar, Joseph, his admission as sena- 
tor from Virgiuia opposed by Sum- 
ner, 286. 

Senate, visited by Sumner during de- 
bates on bank bill, 11, 12; passes 
Mexican war bill, 45; Free-Soil 
members of, in 1851, 86, 87 ; de- 
bate in, on Shadrach case, 88 ; Sum- 
ner's beginnings in, 89, 90 ; refuses 
to permit Sumner to speak on Fugi- 
tive Slave Law, 92; Sumner's 
speech in, on Freedom and Slavery, 
92-95; debate in, on Sumner's 
speech, 95 ; debate in, on executive 
sessions, 98 ; bill to organize Ne- 
braska introduced into, 102 ; final 
introduction of Kansas-Nebraska bill 
into, 103, 104 ; bitter debates in, on 
bill, 106-109 ; debate in, between 
Sumner and Butler, 111-116 ; de- 
bate in, on personal liberty acts, 
126; first debate in, on Kansas, 
136 ; debate on majority report of 
committee on territories, recogniz- 



INDEX 



453 



ing fraudulent government, 136, 
137 ; Sumner's speech in, on the 
crime against Kansas, 138-142 ; vir- 
ulent debate in, between Sumner, 
Douglas, and Cass, 142-145 ; Brooks 
assaults Sumner in, 145-147 ; ap- 
points unfriendly committee to in- 
vestigate affair, 148 ; declines to 
take any action, 149 ; passes tariff 
of 1857, 156 ; first debate in, on 
Lecompton constitution, 167 ; passes 
bill to admit Kansas under Lecomp- 
ton constitution, 169 ; compromises 
with House, 169 ; passes pro-slavery 
resolutions, 171 ; Sumner's speech 
in, on " barbarism " of slavery, 
172-175 ; debates Crittenden com- 
promise, 187, 188 ; passes amend- 
ment to Constitution, 194 ; passes 
Crittenden resolution on object of 
war, 200 ; passes act prohibiting re- 
turn of fugitive slaves by soldiers, 
204, 205 ; debates bill to emancipate 
slaves in district, 205, 206 ; discusses 
Trent affair, 213, 215 ; debates Sum- 
ner's resolutions on state suicide, 
219 ; rejects proposal to protect 
Mexico against European interven- 
tion, 220, 221 ; debates bill to send 
representatives to Hayti and Libe- 
ria, 222 ; ratifies treaty to suppress 
slave trade, 223 ; passes bill to per- 
mit negroes to carry mails, 223 ; re- 
jects bill to permit negroes to tes- 
tify in District, 224 ; passes confis- 
cation bill, 226, 227 ; admits West 
Virginia with gradual emancipation 
proviso, 227 ; debates bill to aid 
emancipation in Missouri, 237 ; de- 
bates resolutions censuring French 
intervention in Mexico, 233 ; de- 
bates bill to issue letters of marque, 
239-241 ; passes resolutions against 
mediation, 241 ; struggle in, over 
repeal of Fugitive Slave Act, 260 ; 
reluctant to pass act to permit 
negroes to testify in federal courts, 
262 ; control of Sumner over, 262, 
263 ; does not insist upon negro 
suffrage in Montana, 263 ; defeats 
negro suffrage in District of Colum- 
bia, 264 ; debate in, on Freedman's 
Bureau, 266 ; debates national 



banks, 267, 268 ; refuses to recog- 
nize reconstructed government of 
Arkansas, 269 ; passes resolution to 
retaliate for treatment of Northern 
prisoners, 279-281 ; debates reports 
on condition of South, 304-307 ; de- 
bates proposed fourteenth amend- 
ment, 310-314 ; rejects negro suf- 
frage in Colorado, 315 ; miscellane- 
ous business in, 318, 319 ; kept by 
Sumner from considering bill to 
amend neutrality laws, 319, 320 ; 
debates negro suffrage in new 
States and in Territories, 326, 327 ; 
debate in, on reconstruction act, 
327-329 ; debates Tenure of Office 
Act, 330, 331; debates Sumner's pro- 
posal to give land to freedmen, 333; 
ratifies Alaska treaty, 338-340 ; re- 
fuses to concur in removal of Stan- 
ton, 347 ; sits in impeachment of 
Johnson, 347-351 ; impressed by 
arguments for defense, 348, 349 ; 
discussion of its action, 350, 351 ; 
debates bill to authorize reprisals 
on foreigners, 353-355 ; passes 
Sumner's substitute, 355 ; rejects 
treaty to purchase St. Thomas, 361 ; 
prevented by Sumner from passing 
act to alter qualifications for secre- 
tary of treasury, 364 ; rejects John- 
son-Clarendon treaties, 364-368 ; de- 
bates bills to admit Virginia and 
Mississippi, on conditions, 374, 375 ; 
debates amendment of naturaliza- 
tion acts, 375, 376 ; reports unfavor- 
ably upon San Domingo treaties, 
384, 385 ; debates annexation, 385, 
386 ; rejects treaty, 386 ; refuses to 
change committees to please Grant, 
388 ; debates proposal to appoint a 
commission to investigate San Do- 
mingo, 388-391 ; removes Sumner 
from committee on foreign relations, 
394-397 ; violent speech of Sumner 
in, on San Domingo intrigue, 397- 

399 ; ratifies treaty of Washington, 

400 ; debates and rejects Sumner's 
civil rights bills, 402-401) ; debates 
amnesty bills, 403, 405, 406 ; passes 
defective civil rights bill, 405; de- 
bates proposal to investigate war 
department, 408 ; Sumner's speech 



454 



INDEX 



in, on Grant, 413-415 ; finally passes 
Sumner's civil rights bill, 427, 428. 
Senior, Nassau W., met by Sumner in 

1S38, 21. 
Seward, William H., his position in 
the Senate in 1851, 86 ; friendly 
with Sumner, 89 ; predicts that no 
new party will rise, 97 ; approves 
Sumner's speech against enforce- 
ment of Fugitive Slave Act, 121 ; 
votes for repeal of Fugitive Slave 
Act, 127 ; moves admission of Kan- 
sas under Topeka constitution, 137 ; 
moves committee of inquiry on 
Brooks's attack on Sumner, 148 ; 
makes speech on " irrepressible con- 
flict," 170 ; reward offered for his 
head in Virginia, 174 ; laughs at 
threat of secession in 1860, 178 ; 
active in suggesting compromises in 
1860, 185 ; discusses compromise 
with Sumner, 190, 191 ; offers con- 
siderable concessions to South, 191 ; 
states purpose of war to foreign 
representatives, 197 ; considered to 
be hostile to Eugland, 208 ; sends 
conciliatory message on Trent affair, 
209 ; his policy explained by Sum- 
ner to Cobden, 212 ; his good will 
toward England asserted by Sum- 
ner, 213 ; his narrow view of rea- 
sons for surrender of envoys, 214 ; 
sneered at by English, 216 ; at- 
tempt of Republicans to force his 
dismissal, 236 ; wishes to issue let- 
ters of marque, 240 ; approves Sum- 
ner's speech against England, 252 ; 
favors Johnson's reconstruction 
policy, 295 ; continues on good 
terms with Sumner, 321 ; his corre- 
spondence with Stanley on Alabama 
claims, 342 ; at Sumner's house, 
predicts annexation of Mexico, 345 ; 
negotiates treaty for annexation of 
St. Thomas, 361 ; no longer a leader 
in 1869, 362. 

Shannon, Wilson, prevents civil war 
with difficulty in Kansas, 134. 

Sheil, Richard Lalor, heard by Sum- 
ner in Parliament, 22. 

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, met by 
Sumner in 1838, 21. 

Sherman, John, disagrees with Sum- 



ner's theory of state suicide, 219; 
opposes repeal of Fugitive Act of 
1793, 261 ; begs Sumner not to in- 
sist on anti-slavery amendment to 
civil appropriation bill, 262 ; moves 
appointment of committee on re- 
construction, 328 ; opposes proposi- 
tion to enforce negro suffrage, 328 ; 
opposes proposition to give land to 
freedmen, 333 ; introduces bill to 
repeal provision of law rendering 
Stewart ineligible to Treasury De- 
partment, 364 ; opposes removal of 
Sumner from his chairmanship, 
395. 

Sherman, William Tecumseh, proposal 
to nominate for President in 1S64, 
271. 

Sismondi, J. C. L. de, his conversation 
with Sumner in 1838, 20, 26. 

Slavery, early references of Sumner 
to, 15, 16, 25, 31 ; proper method of 
attacking it stated by Sumner, 31, 
32 ; not a subject of public contro- 
versy before 1836, 36 ; indifference 
of North to, 38 ; becomes a political 
question, 41 ; question of its exist- 
ence in new Territories, 56, 57 ; lec- 
ture of Sumner on, in 1855, 127, 
128 ; cautious attitude of Lincoln 
toward, at outbreak of war, 197, 
19S ; impatience of Sumner to at- 
tack, 198, 199. See Emancipation. 

Slave trade, treaty of 1S41 for sup- 
pression of, 30 ; question of enforce- 
ment of, by England against Ameri- 
can vessels, 30. 

Slidell, John, his comments on 
Brooks's assault on Sumner, 147 ; 
captured by Wilkes in 1861, 208; 
his release demanded by England, 
209. 

Smith, Gerrit, signs Appeal of Inde- 
pendent Democrats, 106. 

Smith, Sydney, met by Sumner in 
1838, 21, 24. 

South, its real basis for action in 
1833 said by Jackson to be slavery, 
and not the tariff, 37 ; alarmed by 
Turner insurrection, 38 ; calls upon 
North to suppress abolitionists, 40 ; 
imprisons free seamen, 40 ; demands 
equality with North in Senate, 41 ; 



INDEX 



455 



demands right to carry slaves into 
Territories, 66 ; attempt of Calhoun 
to unite, in opposition to North, 67 ; 
lack of general enthusiasm in, over 
slavery, 68 ; threatens secession in 
1850, 70 ; controls country in 1S53, 
101 ; leaders of, adopt bullying 
manners, 113 ; claimed by Butler to 
have carried through Revolution, 
113 ; urged by Atchison to save 
Kansas, 134, 135 ; applauds Brooks's 
attack on Sumner, 150-152 ; adopts 
extreme views of rights of slave- 
holders, 171 ; its threats of seces- 
sion despised in 1860, 178, 179 ; pro- 
cess of secession in, 179-1S4 ; plans 
of leaders of, to control North and 
Europe through cotton, ISO ; ex- 
pects North to break up in anarchy, 
181 ; Union men in, overridden, 
181, 182 ; forms Southern Confed- 
eracy, 182 ; Buchanan's attitude 
toward, 183 ; unwilling to accept 
any compromises in 1861, 194 ; belli- 
gerency of, recognized by England 
and France, 208 ; sends emissaries 
to England and France, 208 ; aid 
received from England by, 248-250; 
its treatment of Northern prisoners, 
279 ; magnanimous attitude of Sum- 
ner toward, 281 ; reconstruction of, 
under Johnson, 300 ; passes acts op- 
pressing negroes, 301 ; reports of 
Grant and Schurz on condition of, 
304-307 ; controlled by former 
rebels, 322, 323 ; discussion of work- 
ing of congressional reconstruction 
in, 335-337 ; bill of Sumner against 
registering names of victories over, 
419. 

South Carolina, expels Hoar, 40 ; con- 
vention in, threatens disunion, 8S ; 
claimed by Butler to have surpassed 
Massachusetts in Revolution, 111 ; 
its proposed neutrality in 1779 ex- 
posed by Sumner, 114 ; process of 
secession in, 179, 182 ; sends com- 
missioners to treat for surrender of 
Sumter, 183 ; fires on Star of the 
West, 184. 

Spain, intervenes in Mexico, 220 ; 
considered an anachronism by Sum- 
ner, 371. 



Speed, James, Sumner's opinion of, in 
1S65, 295. 

Spencer, Lord, visited by Sumner in 
1859, 164. 

Spoils system, used by Johnson, 329; 
employed by Grant, 386, 410. 

"Springfield Republican," opposes 
reelection of Sumner in 1862, 233. 

Stanhope, Lord, visited by Sumner in 
1859, 164. 

Stanley, Lord, negotiates with Seward 
about arbitrating Alabama claims, 
342. 

Stanly, Edward, military governor of 
North Carolina, 227. 

Stanton, Edwin M., not inclined to 
oppose Johnson's reconstruction 
policy, 295; meets Dickens at Sum- 
ner's house, 345; removed by John- 
son, 346 ; his removal not concurred 
in by Senate, 347 ; again removed 
by Johnson, 347 ; urged by Repub- 
licans to refuse to submit, 347 ; 
speaks hopefully of Grant's policy 
on entering presidency, 360. 

Stanton, Frederic P., calls Kansas 
legislature to act concerning Le- 
compton constitution, 168. 

Stephens, Alexander H., writes mani- 
festo against agitation of slavery 
questions after the compromise, 87 ; 
thinks North will fall into anarchy 
in case of stoppage of cotton exports 
from South, 181 ; elected vice-presi- 
dent of Confederacy, 182. 

Stevens, Thaddeus, thinks opposition 
to Johnson hopeless, 295; consults 
with Sumner on plan of action, 299, 
300 ; favors fourteenth amendment, 
310 ; denounced by Johnson as an 
enemy of the Union, 314 ; reports a 
new fourteenth amendment, 316; 
presents articles of impeachment 
against Johnson, 347. 

Stewart, Alexander T., when nomi- 
nated by Grant for Treasury Depart- 
ment, found to be ineligible, 363; 
attempt to remove disqualification 
by law, 364. 

Story, Joseph, teaches in Harvard Law 
School, 7; his friendship with Sum- 
ner, 7 ; plied by Sumner with ques- 
tions, 9 ; gives Sumner letters to 



456 



INDEX 



eminent men at Washington, 11 ; 
offers Sumner position in Law 
School, 13 ; selects Sumner to report 
his decisions, 14; lends Sumner 
money to go to Europe, 17; advises 
him to return, 2-4; supports English 
claim to right of search, 30; his 
death, 50. 
Story, William W., describes Sumner 
as a law student, 9, 10 ; meets him 
in Rome, 163. 
Sugden, Sir Edward, heard by Sumner 

in Parliament, 22. 
Sumner, Charles, ancestry, 1-5; birth 
and childhood, 5 ; studies in Boston 
Latin School, 5 ; wishes to enter 
West Point, 5; studies at Harvard, 
6 ; his early intellectual and social 
habits, 6 ; spends a year in literary 
studies, 6, 7 ; enters Harvard Law 
School, 7 ; begins intimacy with 
Judge Story, 7 ; studies with avidity, 
8 ; gains prizes, 8 ; his youthful 
agreeableness, sincerity, and mod- 
esty, 9 ; takes everything seriously, 
10; begins to feel ambition to excel 
in the law, 10 ; enters office of Rand, 
10; makes a journey to New York, 
Philadelphia, and Washington, 10; 
visits Chancellor Kent, 11; sees dis- 
tinguished people at Washington, 
11; not attracted by political life, 
11, 12; his social freshness and 
charm, 12, 13 ; practices law in Bos- 
ton, 13 ; discussion of his abilities 
as a lawyer, 13; overburdened with 
learning, 13; hampered by lack of 
imagination, 14 ; teaches in Harvard 
Law School, 14; publishes legal arti- 
cles, 14, 15 ; makes a circle of cul- 
tured friends, 15 ; indifferent to 
politics, 15 ; takes slight interest in 
slavery and abolitionism, 16; bor- 
rows money to go to Europe, 17 ; 
his increased impressiveness of ap- 
pearance and manner, 17 ; greatly in- 
fluenced by his foreign experiences, 
18 ; places visited by him, 18; learns 
French and hears lectures in Paris, 
18, 19 ; sees all the sights, 19 ; meets 
leading lawyers, 19; encounters 
eminent men in society, 19, 20; in 
England adopts a dignified attitude, 



20; visits eminent judges and law- 
yers, 20, 21 ; meets leading literary 
and political figures, 21; his great 
popularity, 22; returns to Paris, 23; 
writes account of American bound- 
ary claims, 23 ; in Rome learns Ital- 
ian, 23 ; makes new friends, 23 ; 
visits Germany, 23 ; received by 
Metternich, 24 ; meets eminent his- 
torians and jurists, 24 ; again plunges 
into London society, 24 ; decliues to 
teach in Harvard Law School, 24; 
returns to Boston zealous for work, 
25; really a student, 25; continues 
to ignore slavery, 25, 26 ; resumes 
practice, 27 ; enjoys Boston society, 
2S ; indifferent in campaign of 1840, 
28 ; his breadth and kindliness of 
nature at this time, 29 ; his unself- 
ishness, 29 ; supports English claim 
of right of search of slave traders, 
30; attacks Webster's position on 
Creole case, 31; admires J. Q. 
Adams's career in Congress, 31 ; 
adopts attitude of Liberty party 
toward slavery, 31 ; edits Vesey's 
Reports, 32 ; suffers from ill health 
and despondency, 32, 33 ; regains 
strength and resumes practice, 33 ; 
completes his legal labors, 33. 
Anti-Slavery Whig Leader. De- 
livers oration " on true grandeur of 
nations," 34; denounces war and 
praises peace, 35 ; angers officers of 
army and navy by his language, 35, 
3G ; becomes at once conspicuous, 
36 ; takes part in meeting to protest 
against admission of Texas, 42, 43 ; 
does not seek occasion, 43; mem- 
ber of committee of " Conscience 
Whigs," 44; writes resolutions of 
protest against extension of slave 
territory, 44, 45 ; prophesies success 
of anti-slavery Whigs, 45 ; writes 
severe criticism on Winthrop, call- 
ing him cowardly, 46 ; writes to 
Winthrop expressing hope for con- 
tinued friendly relations, 47 ; pub- 
lishes bitter attack on Winthrop, 48 ; 
his acquaintance dropped by Win- 
throp, 48 ; unable to realize feelings 
of opponents, 49 ; treats living men 
as if they were mere historical fig- 



INDEX 



457 



ures, 49 ; frequently loses friends, 
49 ; his oration before the Phi Beta 
Kappa society, 50 ; attends Whig 
state convention of 1846, 50 ; makes 
speech urging anti-slavery action, 
51, 52 ; renews attack on Winthrop, 
62 ; declines to be candidate against 
him, 52 ; justifies opposition to Mex- 
ican war, 52 ; neglects law for polit- 
ical writing, 53; delivers lecture on 
" White Slavery in Barbary States," 
53 ; offers resolutions against war at 
Whig meeting in Boston, 53 ; at 
state convention supports Palfrey's 
motion not to support any candidate 
not opposed to extension of slavery, 
54 ; his argument, 55 ; defends Pal- 
frey's action in Congress, 55 ; op- 
poses spoils system, 55. 
Member of Free-Soil Party. Signs 
call for convention of anti-slavery 
Whigs, 58 ; defends a third party as 
necessary, 58, 59 ; attends Buffalo 
convention, 59 ; active in Free-Soil 
campaign, GO ; nominated for Con- 
gress against Winthrop, 60 ; his 
career predicted by Longfellow, 60, 
61 ; defeated in election, 61 ; be- 
comes known as a leading Free- 
Soiler, 61 ; loses many friends, 61; 
rejoices in revolution of 1848, 61 ; 
speaks at Free-Soil convention of 
1849, 62 ; states position of Free-Soil 
party, 62, 63 ; lectures in New Eng- 
land towns, 63; argues before state 
Supreme Court against color line in 
schools, 63 ; does not increase legal 
practice, 64; nominated for Con- 
gress against Eliot, 73 ; opposes 
compromise measures, 73 ; disheart- 
ened at Webster's 7th of March 
speech, 73; at Free-Soil convention 
of 1S50, 75; attitude of anti-slavery 
Whigs toward, 75 ; doubtful about 
Free-Soil and Democratic coalitions, 
76 ; his speech at Faneuil Hall, 76- 
80; on coalitions, 77; on proper way 
to nullify Fugitive Slave Law, 77, 

78 ; repeats demands of Free-Soilers, 

79 ; denounces lack of backbone in 
leaders, 79, 80 ; candidate of Free- 
Soilers for the Senate, 80; does not 
seek the place, 81 ; unanimously 



nominated in caucus, 81 ; reluctance 
of Democrats to support, 82 ; de- 
nounced by the Whigs, 82 ; worked 
against by Cass and Cushing, 82 ; 
willing to withdraw in favor of some 
other Free-Soiler, 83; refuses to 
modify his Fugitive Slave Law 
speech to please Democrats, 83 ; his 
speech published by both friends 
and enemies, 83 ; declines to pledge 
anything to satisfy Democrats, 84; 
finally elected, 84 ; receives news of 
success without elation, 84; declines 
to take part in contest against Win- 
throp, 85. 
In the Senate. His Free-Soil col- 
leagues, 86 ; brings a new moral 
element into the Senate, 86 ; never 
notices obstacles, 87 ; his relations 
with various senators, 89; has social 
success in Washington, 89 ; on minor 
committees, 89 ; eulogizes Kossuth, 
but opposes auy change from tradi- 
tional non-intervention, 90 ; sup- 
ports land grants to Iowa, 90 ; pur- 
posely delays mentioning slavery, 
90 ; his silence jeered at by Whigs 
and complained of by abolitionists, 
91; announces purpose to speak in 
due time, 91 ; prevented from speak- 
ing on Fugitive Slave Law, 91, 92 ; 
finally moves an amendment against 
paying expenses under Fugitive 
Slave Act, 92 ; delivers a long 
speech, 93-95; does not attack 
Southerners personally, 93 ; argues 
against constitutionality of slavery 
in Territories, 94 ; holds Fugitive 
Slave Law unconstitutional, 94 ; an- 
nounces purpose not to obey it, 95 ; 
at Free-Soil state convention, 96 ; 
does not take part in campaign, 98 ; 
complained of by Free-Soilers, 98 ; 
in Senate opposes executive sessions, 
98 ; on good terms with Southerners, 
98 ; elected to state constitutional 
convention, 99 ; favors district sys- 
tem of representation, 99; urges 
abolition of color distinctions, 99 ; 
takes part in campaign for adoption 
of constitution, 100; offers amend- 
ment to Nebraska bill to preserve 
the Missouri Compromise, 104 ; signs 



458 



INDEX 



" Appeal of Independent Demo- 
crats," 106; his speech against the 
Nebraska bill, 107 ; does not exas- 
perate opponents, 107 ; again speaks 
before final passage, 107 ; defends 
right of clergy to protest, 108 ; pre- 
dicts end of compromise, 109 ; de- 
nounced as responsible for Burns 
riot, 110 ; defends Massachusetts 
from charge of treason, 111, has per- 
sonal controversy with Butler and 
Mason, 111, 112; violently abused by 
Mason and others, 112 ; feels called 
upon to crush claims of South to su- 
perior patriotism, 113 ; on relative 
shares of Massachusetts and South 
Carolina in the Revolution, 114, 115 
gives Mason the he direct, 115, 116 
gains hatred of the South, 11G 
pleases the North by his courage, 
116; at Republican state convention 
in Massachusetts, 118 ; describes the 
Burns case, 118, 119 ; urges legisla- 
tion to protect fugitive slaves, 119, 
120 ; urges refusal to obey the Fugi- 
tive Slave Law in spite of the Con- 
stitution, 120; in this really preaches 
revolution, 120, 121 ; applauded by 
Chase and Seward, 121 ; his consti- 
tutional doctrine on the Fugitive 
Slave clause, 121, 122 ; left stranded 
by Know-Nothing movement, 124 ; 
declines to support new party, 124 ; 
in Senate offers resolutions on gen- 
eral matters, 125, 126 ; speaks against 
Fugitive Slave Law, 126; delivers 
lecture on the " Anti-Slavery Enter- 
prise," 127 ; travels in West, 128 ; 
expects a new Northern party, 128 ; 
takes part in Massachusetts cam- 
paign for Republicans against Know- 
Nothings, 129 ; foresees trouble from 
Kansas disorders, 136 ; has brief de- 
bate with Douglas, 137 ; delivers 
speech "The Crime against Kan- 
sas," 138-142 ; makes two elaborate 
attacks on enemies, 139 ; his attacks 
on Butler and Douglas, 140, 141 ; 
virulently replied to by Cass and 
Douglas, 142, 143 ; retorts on Doug- 
las with extreme bitterness, 143, 
144 ; justified in his language by the 
provocation, 144, 145 ; assaulted by 



Brooks, 146 ; various testimony re- 
garding assault upon, 146, 147 ; suf- 
fers severely from injuries, 154 ; 
discourages any testimonials, 155; 
writes letters during campaign, 155 ; 
does not feel animosity toward 
Brooks, 155 ; tries vainly to return 
to Senate, 156 ; reelected almost 
unanimously to Senate, 157 ; visits 
France in search of health, 158; 
renews social successes, 158, 159; 
cheered in mind, and hopes for re- 
covery, 159 ; returns to Senate, 159 ; 
does not take part in or listen to 
debates, 160 ; again obliged to sail 
for Europe, 160 ; writes letter to 
constituents, 161 ; treated by Brown- 
Sequard by the moxa, 161 ; suffers 
from angina pectoris, 162 ; cheered 
by hopes of improvement, and by 
news from America, 162 ; his reasons 
for not resigning, 163 ; visits Rome, 
163 ; meets Cavour, 163 ; in London, 
his social engagements, 163, 164 ; 
returns to Senate, 164, 170 ; takes 
slight part in active business, 171 ; 
delivers speech on " Barbarism of 
Slavery," 171-174 ; warned to be- 
ware of assassination, 172 ; ignores 
feelings of his opponents, 172, 173; 
quotes slaveholders to prove his 
point, 174 ; his speech considered 
unwise by Republicans, 175; speaks 
at Cooper Institute in campaign of 
1860, 176 ; in Massachusetts state 
campaign, 176 ; predicts overthrow 
of slave power, 177 ; repeats that 
disunion threats are ridiculous, 178 ; 
opposes any compromise in 1861, 
189 ; disagrees with Adams on this 
point, 189; abstains from debate, 
189 ; urges North not to concede an 
inch, 189-193 ; repudiates " Peace 
Conference," 190 ; tells Buchanan 
Massachusetts will never adopt Crit- 
tenden compromise, 190 ; opposes 
repeal of personal liberty laws, 191 ; 
pleads with Seward not to favor 
concessions, 191 ; says all concession 
has done harm, 192 ; again attacks 
Crittenden compromise, 193; be- 
comes chairman of committee on 
foreign relations, 194; urges ap- 



INDEX 



459 



pointment of fit men, 195 ; reports 
in favor of arbitration with England, 
195 ; narrowly escapes a mob in Bal- 
timore, 196 ; addresses Massachu- 
setts troops, 196 ; from beginning of 
war desires extinction of slavery, 
198; foresees this as necessary end 
of the war, 199 ; thinks emancipation 
will conciliate Europe, 199 ; confers 
with Lincoln and urges early action, 
199, 200 ; refuses to vote on Critten- 
den resolution, 200 ; introduces bills 
to punish treason, 200 ; in Massachu- 
setts state convention makes public 
demand for emancipation, 201 ; not 
urgent for instant action, 202; favors 
compensation for loyal slaveholders, 
202; considered impolitic by con- 
servatives, 202 ; repeats same argu- 
ment in a lecture at Cooper Insti- 
tute, 203 ; reassured by Lincoln, 203 ; 
criticises Halleck's order to exclude 
fugitive slaves, 204 ; suggests legis- 
lation to prevent return of fugitives, 
204 ; suggests abolition in the Dis- 
trict, 205 ; consults with Lincoln on 
plan for gradual abolition, 205 ; jus- 
tifies compensation, 206 ; urges Lin- 
coln not to delay signing, 207 ; on 
news of Trent affair says surrender 
is necessary, 209 ; urges Lincoln to 
avoid conflict by giving up Mason 
and Slidell, 210 ; reads letters from 
Cobden and Bright, 210 ; points out 
results of war with England, 211; 
on Seward's and Lincoln's attitude, 
212, 213 ; tries to prevent discussion 
of Trent case in Senate, 213 ; makes 
speech on Trent correspondence, 
214, 215 ; calls it a triumph of Amer- 
ican principles, 215 ; sneered at by 
English, 216 ; gains reputation in 
international law, 216 ; introduces 
resolutions on status of seceded 
States, 217 ; argues for state suicide 
and consequent end of slavery, 218 ; 
his logic faulty, 219 ; finds himself 
without support in Senate, 219 ; his 
argument on legal tender notes, 220 ; 
favors assuming interest on Mexican 
debt to satisfy France, 220 ; intro- 
duces bill to recognize Hayti and 
Liberia, 221, 222 ; declines medal 



from Hayti, 222 ; reports bill to 
carry out treaty to suppress slave 
trade, 223 ; introduces bill to allow 
negroes to carry mails, 223 ; makes 
efforts to give negroes rights as wit- 
nesses, 224; argues on constitution- 
ality of emancipation under war 
power, 225, 226; votes against ad- 
mission of West Virginia, 227 ; op- 
poses bill to establish temporary 
governments in seceded States, 227 ; 
introduces resolutions against mili- 
tary governors, 228 ; introduces re- 
solution against putting names of 
victories on regimental colors, 228 ; 
satisfied with results of session, 229 ; 
continues to press Lincoln to eman- 
cipate slaves, 229 ; never loses con- 
fidence in Lincoln, 230 ; the recog- 
nized leader of anti-slavery in the 
country, 231 ; his impressive person- 
ality, 231 ; arguments for his reelec- 
tion, 232 ; opposed as too radical, 

233 ; nominated by Republican con- 
vention, 233 ; in campaign defends 
himself, 234 ; reelected to Senate, 

234 ; introduces various bills, 236 ; 
favors enlistment of negroes, 237 ; 
opposes gradual emancipation bill 
for Missouri, 237, 238 ; opposes re- 
solutions against French in Mexico, 
239 ; opposes privateering, 239, 240 ; 
fails to prevent passage of act, 240 ; 
tries to prevent action under it, 240; 
persuades Lincoln not to issue let- 
ters, 241 ; introduces resolutions 
against offers of mediation, 241 ; 
continually corresponds with Eng- 
lish friends, 243 ; warns Cobden of 
danger of war, 243 ; complains to 
Duchess of Argyll of England's un- 
friendly attitude, 244 ; describes his 
part in urging United States to act 
in English courts against privateers, 
245; announces inevitable end of 
war in emancipation, 245 ; on impos- 
sibility of compromise, 246 ; on bit- 
terness toward England, 246 ; la- 
ments growth of militarism, 247 ; 
on dangers of a general foreign war, 
247 ; prepares a speech on England's 
attitude, 248 ; rehearses unfriendly 
acts on England's part, 248-252; 



460 



INDEX 



denounces the Alabama, 250; de- 
nounces the policy of Napoleon, 250, 
251 ; convicts England of inconsis- 
tency, 251 ; denies that in fact the 
Confederate States are a nation, 
251, 252 ; his speech criticised in 
England, 252 ; justifies his conduct 
to Cobden, 253, 254 ; wishes to post- 
pone reconstruction, 255 ; in 18C3 
writes article against Lincoln's mili- 
tary government, 25G ; thinks it the 
duty of Congress to interpose, 258 ; 
offers resolutions on necessity of 
protecting freedmen in reconstruc- 
tion, 259 ; proposes emancipation 
amendment to Constitution, 2G0 ; 
insists that Congress can abolish by 
statute, 260 ; succeeds in carrying 
repeal of Fugitive Slave Acts, 2G1; 
introduces bills to benefit free ne- 
groes, 2G2 ; his power over the Sen- 
ate at this time, 2G2, 2G3 ; opposes 
white suffrage in Montana territorial 
bill, 2G3 ; fails to secure negro suf- 
frage in District, 264 ; other efforts 
to secure equal rights for negroes, 
264 ; carries through bill establishing 
Freedman's Bureau, 265, 266 ; makes 
report on French Spoliation Claims, 
267 ; introduces bill to reform the 
civil service, 267 ; opposes subjecting 
national banks to state taxation, 
268 ; secures establishment of mint 
in Oregon, 268 ; his ideas on tariff 
duties, 268 ; opposes recognition of 
Arkansas under Lincoln's recon- 
struction, 269 ; sums up work of 
Congress, 270 ; takes no part in 
movement against Lincoln, 271 ; 
does not see how Lincoln can be 
forced to withdraw, 272 ; story of 
his having advocated nomination of 
Johnson probably fictitious, 273 ; 
explains to Cobden the reasons for 
distrust of Lincoln, 274 ; speaks in 
campaign on " party spirit," 274 ; 
contrasts Mayflower with slave-ship, 
275 ; shows impossibility of peace 
between North and South, 276 ; on 
results of election, 277 ; defends 
seizure of Florida, 277 ; urges ap- 
pointment of Chase to chief -justice- 
ship, 278 ; secures admission of negro 



lawyer to bar, 278 ; opposes bill for 
bust of Taney, 278, 279; prevents 
fortification of Northern border, 279 ; 
opposes proposal to retaliate for 
abuses on Northern prisoners, 280, 
281 ; opposes paintings in Capitol of 
victories over Confederates, 2S1 ; dis- 
cusses reconstruction with Lincoln, 
282 ; tries to secure negro suffrage 
in reconstruction act of 1864, 284 ; 
opposes recognition of Louisiana 
government as legitimate, 285; con- 
tinues to demand negro suffrage, 
286; opposes admission of a senator 
from Virginia, 286 ; offers resolu- 
tions on reconstruction, 287 ; his 
course justified, 287, 28S; does not 
quarrel personally with Lincoln, 
288 ; explains his position to Bright, 
288, 289 ; remains in Washington 
after session, 289 ; at deathbed of 
Lincoln, 290 ; his kindness to Mrs. 
Lincoln, 290 ; expects cooperation 
from Johnson, 291 ; delivers eulogy 
upon Lincoln, 292; begins to stir up 
opposition to Johnson's reconstruc- 
tion policy, 294 ; discouraged by 
lack of support, 295 ; thinks the 
Southern element controls Johnson, 
296 ; justifies universal suffrage, 296 ; 
announces necessity of congressional 
action, 297 ; makes speech demand- 
ing unrestricted equal rights, 297- 
299 ; sends telegram to Johnson 
urging him to pause, 302 ; has final 
interview with Johnson, 302, 303 ; 
introduces bills to protect civil 
rights of negroes, 303, 304 ; calls 
President's report on the South 
"whitewashing," 305; stirs up feel- 
ing by the phrase, 305 ; explains the 
real condition of the South, 306, 307 ; 
takes no part in debate on civil 
rights bill, 309 ; objects to admission 
of a senator from Florida, 310 ; op- 
poses proposed fourteenth amend- 
ment on ground that it permits 
States to exclude blacks from suf- 
frage, 310-313 ; bases argument on 
nature of Republican government, 
312 ; shows that only through negro 
suffrage can there be peace, 313; 
denounced by the President, 314 ; 



INDEX 



461 



opposes bill to admit Colorado, 315; 
opposes admission of Nebraska, 31G ; 
unable to prevent admission of Ten- 
nessee with white suffrage, 316 ; sat- 
isfied with fourteenth amendment 
as adopted, 317 ; opposes bill to re- 
move disqualifications from jurors 
in case of Davis, 318 ; argues that a 
majority vote is necessary to election 
of a senator, 319 ; his attitude on 
minor matters, 319; succeeds in 
blocking bill to abolish neutrality 
laws, 320; suffers from nervous ex- 
haustion, 320; continues on good 
terms with Seward, 321; on basis 
for protectionist agitation, 321 ; de- 
nounces Johnson's policy, 323; his 
marriage and subsequent separation, 
323; in Thirty-ninth Congress offers 
new resolutions on reconstruction, 
324; opposes woman suffrage, 325; 
opposes any educational qualifica- 
tion, 325; blocks admission of Ne- 
braska until act is amended to allow 
negro suffrage, 326 ; doscribes his 
success in placing negro suffrage in 
the reconstruction bill, 328; exas- 
perates opponents by his tedious- 
ness, 329; secures abolition of peon- 
age, 329 ; wishes to extend scope of 
Tenure of Office Act, 330; denounces 
Johnson as a usurper, 331; wishes 
to revise presidential term and elec- 
tion, 331, 332 ; sums up progress, 
wishes impeachment of Johnson, 
332; urges some method of giving 
the freedmen land and education, 
332, 333; stirs up dislike by his 
masterfulness, 333, 334; urges free 
schools in South, 334, 336; afraid to 
trust Johnson, 337; favors ratifi- 
cation of Alaska treaty to please 
Russia, 338, 339; hopes it will not 
prove a precedent, 340; thinks only 
way to secure permanent peace is to 
have England pay claims, 341 ; tells 
Bright arbitration must cover the 
whole case, 342 ; struggles against 
narrow caucus rule of Senate, 343; 
again tries to force equal education 
upon South, 343 ; unable to carry bill 
to secure suffrage to blacks all over 
country, 344; his further attempts 



to secure legal equality in small 
matters, 344 ; moves into a new 
house in Washington, his guests, 
345 ; opposes admission of Senator 
Thomas from Maryland, 346 ; urges 
Stanton to refuse to resign, 347 ; his 
tribute to Wade's incorruptibility, 
349 ; argues against right of chief 
justice to vote in case of tie in im- 
peachment proceedings, 350 ; his 
argument for conviction of John- 
son, 350 ; argues in favor of right 
of Congress to impose conditions on 
States, 351 ; encourages election of 
negroes to Congress, 351 ; argues 
against payment of debt in green- 
backs, 352, 353 ; opposes bill to au- 
thorize President to make reprisals 
upon countries arresting American 
citizens, 354 ; succeeds in carrying a 
substitute through Senate, 355 ; re- 
elected to Senate, 356; in campaign 
urges necessity of Republican rule 
and resumption of specie payments, 
356; his plea for equal rights, 356; 
neither favors nor opposes Grant's 
nomination, 357 ; his comment on 
Reverdy Johnson as minister to 
England, 357 ; opposes fifteenth 
amendment as unnecessary and 
dangerous, 358 ; does not wish a 
Cabinet position under Grant, 359 ; 
early doubts Grant's ability, 359, 
360; discusses Johnson's English 
treaties with Grant, 360 ; secures 
rejection of treaty to buy St. 
Thomas, 361 ; his influential position 
in the Senate at opening of Grant's 
term, 362; a recognized Republican 
leader, 362 ; looks forward to period 
of repose, 363 ; on good terms with 
members of Cabinet, 363 ; objects to 
proposal to alter law in order to ad- 
mit Stewart as secretary of trea- 
sury, 364; has little influence on 
diplomatic appointments, 364 ; op- 
poses Johnson treaty as inadequate, 
365 ; enlarges on catalogue of Eng- 
lish infractions of neutrality, 365- 
367 ; his motives in stating extreme 
claims, 367; supported by Senate, 
368 ; amazes both friends and ene- 
mies in England, 368; his course 



462 



INDEX 



justified by events, 368 ; succeeds 
in preventing recognition of Cuban 
belligerency, 369 ; consulted by Fish 
as to Motley's instructions, 369, 370; 
his extravagant expectations of Eng- 
land's yielding, 370; again urges 
vigorous action, 371 ; his speech be- 
fore Massachusetts Republican con- 
vention, 371, 372; announces true 
policy in Cuban question, 371 ; does 
not expect cession of Canada, 372 ; 
his argument for equal rights in lec- 
ture on caste, 372, 373; urges that 
if Virginia rescind ratification of 
fifteenth amendment it be reduced 
to provisional government, 374 ; re- 
joices at admission of a colored sen- 
ator from Mississippi, 375 ; moves 
to strike out " white " from natu- 
ralization laws, 375 ; introduces bill 
to refund national debt, 376, 377 ; 
favors one-cent postage, 377 ; various 
other acts, 377, 378 ; visited by Grant 
to urge support of San Domingo 
treaties, 3S2 ; question of his having 
promised support, 382, 3S3 ; impos- 
sibility of his having pledged him- 
self, 3S3; secures deliberate consid- 
eration of treaties, 384; discovers 
means employed to get treaties, 384 ; 
opposes consideration in open ses- 
sion, 385 ; his speech against ratifi- 
cation, 3S6 ; does not resent removal 
of Motley, 386; in Massachusetts 
campaign makes no reference to San 
Domingo, 387 ; failure of attempt to 
remove from committee on foreign 
relations, 388 ; offers resolutions 
calling for correspondence relating 
to treaty, 388 ; opposes plan to ap- 
point a commission, 388; his lan- 
guage exasperating and censorious, 
389 ; does not realize that he will 
irritate Grant, 390 ; bitterly attacked 
by various senators, 390 ; suffers in 
health from this quarrel, 392 ; ac- 
cused by Fish and Motley of treach- 
ery to Grant, 393 ; severs friendly 
relations with Fish, 394 ; removed 
by Senate, from position at head of 
committee on foreign affairs 395, 
396; makes no complaint, 397; in- 
troduces resolutions calling for re- 



moval of navy from San Domingo, 
397; his speech denouncing Grant's 
action, 398, 399 ; favors measure to 
repress Ku-Klux, 399; his influence 
in favor of treaty of Washington, 
400 ; uses influence to prevent But- 
ler's nomination in Massachusetts, 
400 ; unaware of attempt to recon- 
cile him with Grant, 401 ; introduces 
amendment making President in- 
eligible for reelection, 401, 402 ; his 
efforts to secure passage of civil 
rights act, 402—106; his argument 
for equal rights as beyond matters 
of feeling, 403; argues against color 
prejudice, 404 ; insists on purely 
moral aspect, 404, 405 ; his bill fails 
repeatedly, 405, 406 ; shows failing 
health and lack of originality in de- 
bate, 406; introduces resolutions to 
investigate sales of arms during 
Franco-German war, 407 ; attacked 
as unpatriotic, 408; testifies before 
investigating committee, 409 ; un- 
willing to take lead in liberal Re- 
publican movement, 411 ; reluctant 
to leave Republican party, 411; his 
ideas adopted in Republican plat- 
form, 412 ; his speech declaring op- 
position to Grant, 412-415 ; arraigns 
Grant for party despotism, 413 ; and 
for corruption in office, 414 ; his 
speech exaggerated and a failure, 
415; bitterly criticised by leading 
Republicans, 415 ; finally decides to 
vote for Greeley, 416 ; assailed by 
Blaine in an open letter, 416 ; his 
reply, 416, 417; his health giving 
way, visits Europe, 417 ; leaves 
speech to be printed, 418 ; decliues 
Democratic nomination in Massa- 
chusetts, 418 ; sadness of his last 
meeting with English friends, 418, 
419 ; returns to Washington, but is 
unable to serve on committees, 419 ; 
offers bill to prevent names of bat- 
tles in civil war from being honored, 
419 ; his other share in business, 
420 ; his bill condemned by the Mas- 
sachusetts legislature as an insult 
to the soldier, 421, 422; suffers 
from continued ill health and de- 
pression, 423 ; embittered by altered 



INDEX 



463 



character of Republican party, 423 ; 
isolated by deaths of old friends, 
424 ; excluded from Republican cau- 
cus, 424 ; renews social life in Bos- 
ton, avoiding political discussion, 
424; on returning to Senate finds 
himself without a party, 426 ; intro- 
duces a large number of bills, 426 ; 
unable to secure immediate consid- 
eration of civil rights bill, 427 ; asks 
Edmunds to help him, 427 ; attends 
New England dinner in New York, 
428 ; his subsequent activity in Sen- 
ate, 428, 429 ; his speech on chief 
justiceship, 429 ; gratified at re- 
scinding of censure by Massachu- 
setts, 429 ; his last speech, 429 ; his 
last illness and death, 430 ; summary 
of his character, 431 ; discussion of 
his eloquence, 431 : his egotism in 
later life, 431, 432; his belief in 
principles of democracy, 432. 
Personal traits. General estimate, 
431, 432 ; ambition, 8, 25, 60, 81 ; 
courage, 110, 113, 116, 236; dig- 
nity, 80, 83, 84, 115, 386, 394, 397, 
426 ; eloquence, 6, 35, 50, 60, 61 ; 
egotism, 431 ; generosity, 22, 29, 
155, 228, 278-281, 419; honesty, 
383, 393 ; invective, power of, 139- 
144 ; kindliness, 290, 424, 429 ; lack 
of humor, 10, 14 ; lack of imagina- 
tion, 48, 49, 415 ; legal ability, 13 ; 
masterfulness, 262, 333 ; modesty, 
13, 20, 22 ; moral force, 6, 86, 362 ; 
naturalness, 9, 12, 432 ; personal 
appearance, 12, 17, 231 ; prolixity, 
312, 406 ; social charm, 6, 9, 12, 17, 
22, 89, 98, 321, 345, 362 ; wideness 
of culture, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13. 
Political views. Abolitionists, 43 ; 
Alabama claims, 341, 342, 360, 365- 
367, 370, 400; Alaska treaty, 339, 
340 ; Andrew Johnson, 303, 323, 330, 
337, 350 ; caucus, congressional, 343 ; 
civil service reform, 55, 195, 237, 
267, 330 ; compromises in 1861, 189- 
194 ; Cuban belligerency, 369, 371 ; 
debt, payment of, 352, 376, 377 ; dis- 
union, 178, 217, 218 ; emancipation, 
198, 199, 201-207, 225-227, 229, 230, 
237, 259, 260, 269, 277 ; England's 
policy during civil war, 243-247, I 



248-254, 367 ; equal civil rights for 
negroes, 223-225, 237, 255, 262, 264- 
266, 278, 303, 309, 312, 333, 344, 351, 
375, 402-406, 420, 426-428, 430; 
equality of mankind, 44, 61, 99, 297, 
324, 356, 372, 374, 387, 432; Eu- 
rope, attitude toward, 320, 353-355 ; 
expansion, 340 ; fifteenth amend- 
ment, 358; Florida affair, 277; 
fourteenth amendment, 310, 317 ; 
French spoliation claims, 267, 426 ; 
Free-Soil party, 58, 62, 76, 79, 80, 
97 ; Fugitive Slave Law, 77-79, 94, 
95, 111, 112, 116, 118-122, 191, 204, 
227, 261, 262 ; Hayti, recognition of, 
221, 222 ; Kansas, troubles in, 138- 
142, 173 ; Kansas-Nebraska bill, 107, 
108 ; Know-Nothing party, 124, 128, 
129 ; legal-tender notes, 220 ; lib- 
eral Republi can movement, 411-418 ; 
Liberia, recognition of, 221, 222 ; 
Massachusetts and South Carolina 
in the Revolution, 111, 113; media- 
tion, in civil war, 241 ; Mexican 
war, 46-48, 52-55 ; Mexico, French 
intervention in, 220, 238, 239, 250, 
251 ; national banks, 267, 268 ; negro 
education, 333-335, 343 ; negro suf- 
frage, 263, 264, 2S4, 286, 288, 291, 
292, 294-296, 303, 310-313, 315, 325- 
328, 334, 344 ; party politics, 27, 28, 
55, 78, 273-275, 316, 400 ; popular 
sovereignty, 176 ; presidential term, 
331, 401 ; privateering, 239-241, 243 ; 
reconstruction, 228, 255-258, 269, 
284-289, 304, 306, 307, 310, 323, 328, 
332, 351, 356, 374; retaliation for 
Southern treatment of prisoners, 
280; Republican party, 411-413; 
St. Thomas treaty, 361 ; San Do- 
mingo treaties, 384-390, 397-399; 
senatorial elections, 319 ; slavery, 
15, 16, 26, 31, 32, 51, 53, 62, 93, 114, 
127, 172-175, 234, 275, 329; slave 
trade, 223 ; tariff, 268, 321; Texas, 43, 
44 ; Trent affair, 209-213, 215 ; war, 
34-36, 63, 196 ; woman suffrage, 325. 
Sumner, Charles Pinckney, father of 
Charles Sumner, his education, and 
career in Massachusetts politics, 3, 
4 ; his character, 4 ; predicts slavery 
struggle, 4 ; connected with anti- 
Masonic movement, 4. 



464 



INDEX 



Sumner, General Edwin V., relative 
of Charles Sumner, 2. 

Sumner, Increase, relative of Charle3 
Sumner, his career, 2. 

Sumner, Job, grandfather of Charles 
Sumner, his education, and career 
in revolutionary army, 2, 3. 

Sumner, Matilda, twin sister of 
Charles Sumner, 5. 

Sumner family, its history in England 
and America, 1-5. 

Sutherland, Duchess of, meets Sum- 
ner in 1838, 21, 26 ; and again in 
1857, 159. 

Talfourd, Sir Thomas Noon, meets 
Sumner in 1838, 21. 

Taney, Roger B., his death, 278; pla- 
cing of his bust in Supreme Court 
room prevented by Sumner, 278. 

Taylor, Zachary, brings on Mexican 
war, 45 ; nominated for President, 
57 ; considers himself a People's 
candidate, 57 ; wishes to organize 
new Territories as States, 69 ; 
strongly opposes compromise mea- 
sures, 72; his death, 72. 

Tennessee, attempt of Sumner to 
secure negro suffrage in, 316. 

Tennyson, Alfred, visited by Sumner 
in 1859, 164. 

Territories, question of slavery in, 56 ; 
organization of, urged by Polk, 65; 
difficulties in war of settlement of, 
66-68 ; admission of, as States urged 
by Taylor, 69 ; negro suffrage in, 
327. 

Texas, its boundary question causes 
danger of war with Mexico, 34 ; 
agitation for its annexation, 41 ; an- 
nexed through endeavors of Calhoun 
and Tyler, 41,43; opposition to its 
admission, in Massachusetts, 43-45; 
admitted as a State, 45; question of 
its boundaries in 1849, 69, 70, 71. 

Thibaut, Anton Friedrich Justus, 
visited by Sumner, 24. 

Thomas, General Lorenzo, attempt 
of Johnson to make secretary of 
war, 347. 

Thomas, Francis, prevented by Sum- 
ner from entering Senate from 
Maryland, 346. 



Thompson, Jacob, aids secessionists 
in 1860, from Buchanan's Cabinet, 
183. 

Thornton, Sir Edward, British minis- 
ter, anxious to settle Alabama ques- 
tion, 373. 

Ticknor, George, a Compromise Whig 
in 1850, 74. 

Toombs, Robert, describes with ap- 
proval Butler's assault on Sumner, 
146, 147. 

Trumbull, Lyman, called a traitor by 
Douglas, 137 ; votes against Critten- 
den resolution, 200 ; calls civil 
rights bill unnecessary, 308 ; later 
introduces similar bills himself, 308; 
his attitude in impeachment trial, 
348 ; opposes removal of Sumner 
from his chairmanship, 395 ; opposes 
reelection of Grant, 410. 

Tuck, Amos, votes against Winthrop 
for speaker, 55. 

Turner, Nat, leads slave insurrection, 
38. 

Tyler, John, favors annexation of 
Texas, 41 ; secures it in 1845, 42. 

Upshur, Abel P., calls abolition in 
Texas a calamity, 42. 

Van Buren, Martin, nominated for 
President by Buffalo convention, 
59. 

Vaughan, Sir Charles Richard, enter- 
tains Sumner, 20. 

Vermont, Confederate raid into, 279. 

Victoria, her coronation witnessed by 
Sumner, 22. 

Virginia, anti-slavery feelings in, 168 ; 
John Brown raid in, 170 ; calls 
Peace Conference, 182 ; recognition 
of reconstructed government of, op- 
posed by Sumner, 286, 287 ; debate 
on its admission in 1870, 374. 

Wade, Benjamin F., elected to Senate, 
89 ; opposes Lincoln's renomination, 
271 ; favors bill to retaliate for 
Southern treatment of prisoners, 
280 ; thinks opposition to Johnson 
hopeless, 295 ; moves to take up 
bill for admission of Nebraska, 325; 
question of his fitness to sit in im- 



INDEX 



465 



peachment, 349 ; tribute of Sumner 
to, 349, 350 ; favors ineligibility of 
President for reelection, 401. 

Wade, Edward, signs •' Address of In- 
dependent Democrats," 106. 

Waite, M. R., appointed chief jus- 
tice, 429. 

War, Sumner's arguments against, 34- 
3G, 03. 

War of Rebellion, military situation 
in, during 18G1-1863, 235, 236. 

War of Revolution, 2. 

Washburne, Elihu, secretary of state 
for a week, 363. 

Waterston, Mrs., describes Sumner as 
a law student, 9. 

Webster, Daniel, presents a prize to 
Sumner, 7 ; admits Sumner to floor 
of Senate, 11 ; opposes English 
claim to right of search, 30; de- 
mands surrender of Creole muti- 
neers, 30 ; attacked by Channing 
and Sumner, 31 ; at Whig Conven- 
tion of 1847, endeavors to get united 
support of Massachusetts Whigs, 54; 
humiliated by Taylor's nomination, 
57 ; makes 7th of March speech, 72 ; 
appointed secretary of state, 72 ; 
his influence in Boston, 73; com- 
ments of Sumner on, 73; bitter re- 
mark of Emerson on, 74 ; works 
against Sumner in election of 1S50, 
82 ; announces finality of compro- 
mise, 87. 

Weed, Thurlow, considers threat of 
disunion a mere game, 179; shows 
political advantage of offering com- 
promises, 190. 

Welles, Gideon, approves Wilkes's 
seizure of Mason and Slidell, 209 ; 
opposes plan to issue letters of 
marque, 241. 

West Virginia, admitted to Union, 
227. 

Wharncliffe, Lady, describes Sumner's 
social success in England, 22. 

Wharncliffe, Lord, entertains Sumner 
in 1838, 21. 

Wheaton, Henry, acquaintance of 
Sumner with, 11. 

Whewell, William, met by Sumner 
in 1838, 21. 

Whig party, considered anti-slavery 



by Sumner in 1844, 33 ; division in, 
on question of continuing opposition 
to Texas, 43^15; splits in Massachu- 
setts over Mexican war, 41-55 ; 
struggle in state convention of 1846, 
50-52; carried by conservative ele- 
ment, 51; Massachusetts conven- 
tion of, in 1847, 53-55 ; nominates 
Taylor in 1848, 57 ; votes down 
Wilmot Proviso, 57 ; bolt from in 
Massachusetts, 58 ; joins with Free- 
Soilers in New Hampshire, 63 ; 
liable to be disrupted by Taylor's 
territorial policy, 72 ; bitterness of, 
against Free-Soilers, 75; defeated 
by Free-Soil and Democratic coali- 
tion, 80; again defeated in 1851, 85; 
its position in campaign of 1852, 96; 
beaten in election, 97 ; regains con- 
trol of Massachusetts, 97; carries 
Massachusetts in 1853, and rejects 
new constitution, 100 ; practically 
dead in 1853, 101 ; members of, 
refuse to join Republican party, 
122 ; joins Know-Nothing move- 
ment, 123-125 ; reasons for its co- 
hesion, 124 ; a greater hindrance to 
freedom than Democratic party, 
125. 

Whittier, John Greenleaf, impressed 
by Sumner's speech in Whig con- 
vention, 52 ; Free-Soil leader in 
1850, 74; writes poem to C. S., 116; 
praises Sumner's Kansas speech, 
145; opposes war to prevent seces- 
sion, 184; urges reelection of Sum- 
ner, 234 ; disapproves of Sumner's 
attack on Grant, 415. 

Wigfall, Louis T., predicts ruin to 
English monarchy if cotton export 
be blocked, 181. 

Wilde, Sergeant Thomas, meets Sum- 
ner in 1838, 21. 

Wilkes, Captain Charles, seizes Mason 
and Slidell, 20S; approved by 
Welles, thanked by House, 209 ; 
judgment of Seward upon his con- 
duct, 214 ; Sumner's opinion on, 
215. 

Wilmot, David, offers anti-slavery 
proviso, 56. 

Wilmot Proviso, 56. 

Wilson, Henry, leader of Conscience 



466 



INDEX 



Whigs, 44 ; announces purpose to 
bolt, 58 ; Free-Soil leader in 1850, 
74 ; urges coalition with Democrats, 
76 ; on formation of Republican 
party, 118; joins Know-Nothing 
party, his justification, 123 ; elected 
to Senate, 124 ; states facts of 
Brooks*s attack on Sumner, 148 ; 
advises Kansas free-state men to 
vote, 166 ; introduces bill to abolish 
slavery in the District, 205 ; his 
efforts to secure equal pay for negro 
soldiers, 264; prefers to persuade 
rather than oppose Johnson, 295; 
introduces civil rights bill, 305 ; on 
original form of fourteenth amend- 
ment, 316 ; protests against removal 
of Motley, 386 ; opposes removal of 
Sumner from his chairmanship, 
395 ; prevents Butler from getting 
Republican nomination for governor 
of Massachusetts, 400 ; suffers from 
paralysis, 424. 
Winthrop, Robert C, schoolmate of 



Sumner, 5 ; elected to legislature, 15 ; 
gives toast " Our country, however 
bounded," 43 ; votes for Mexican 
war bill, 46 ; denounced by Sumner, 
46, 47 ; tells Sumner his criticisms 
are offensive, 47 ; again accused by 
Sumner, 48; renounces Sumner's 
acquaintance, 48 ; again assailed by 
Whigs, 52 ; refusal of Sumner to 
run against, for Congress, 52 ; re- 
elected in spite of a Whig bolt, 52 ; 
opposes Palfrey's resolutions at 
Whig state convention, 54 ; elected 
Speaker of House, 55 ; reelected to 
Congress over Sumner, 55 ; ap- 
pointed to Senate to fill Webster's 
place, 73; candidate for Senate in 
election of 1850, 74 ; defeated for 
governor in 1851, 85 ; declines to 
join Republicans, 12S, 129. 

Woman suffrage, Sumner's opinion 
on, 325. 

Wordsworth, William, meets Sumner 
in 1838, 21. 






ELECTROTYPED AND PRINTED 
BY H. O. HOUGHTON AND CO. 

dfflbe Iftrtietjiibe ftregg 

CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U. S. A. 



JLut <> cl 7 












LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





nilltHlllt 



■ 

















